View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
13 November 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL
EXCISE BILL
QUESTION
- INTERNEES IN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
PAPERS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
- Arsenal Railway Report
QUESTION
- CURTAILMENT OF RACING
QUESTION
- RECORD OF WAR SERVICES
QUESTION
- WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT
THE WAR
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- NAVAL ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- REGULATION OF IMPORTS
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
EXPORTS TO JAPAN
ELECTORAL BILL
A BILL
AN ACT
- Part I. - Preliminary
- Parts
- Part I. - Preliminary
- Part V.- Electoral Rolls
- Part X. - Writs for Elections
- Division 2. - Qualifications and Vacancies
- Chief Electoral Officer
- Electoral Registrars
- Divisions
- Distribution Commissioners
- Quota
- Inspection
- Several Honorable Senators. - No
FORM E
QUESTION
- FORM F

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read prayers.

page 7647

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL

Assent reported.

page 7647

EXCISE BILL

Assent reported.

– Every application dealing with individual cases will be dealt with on its merits.

page 7648

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service)’ Act 1911 -

Awards of Commonwealth Court of Con ciliation and Arbitration, and other documents in connexion with plaints submitted by -

Australian Postal Electricians Union - Further Variation (dated 9th October, 1918).

Australian Postal Electricians Union - Further Variation (dated 16th October, 1918).

Australian Telegraph and Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union - Further Variation (dated 16th October, 1918).

Commonwealth Railways Act 1917. - By-law No. 8.

Copy of letter addressed to the Acting Prime Minister by the Auditor-General, comment- ing on certain remarks made in Parlia- ment by the Hon. W. G. Higgs.

Papers presented to British Parliament -

Ministry of Reconstruction. - Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee -

Report.

Summaries of Evidence.

Public Service Act 1902-1917. - Promotion of W. Thomson, Department of the Treasury.

page 7649

– In view of the fact that the War Precautions Act will automatically lapse shortly, will the Government take into consideration the advisability of providing some other legislation whereby some of the regulations will remain in force, so as to prevent disorganization, until such time as it may be convenient for the whole. of the regulations to be repealed?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The Government are fully alive to the possibilities mentioned by the honorable senator, and have the matter under close consideration with a view to taking such action as may be necessary.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Peace Conference : Representation of Australia.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– I have received an intimation from Senator ‘Needham that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The representation of Australia at the Peace Conference.”

Four honorable senators having risen in their places,

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

.- I move-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 9 p.m. on Thursday.

– I am just about to do so. Number 1 resolution of ihat conference reads -

The right of small nations, including Ireland, to political independence”.

On 5th January, 1918, Mr. Lloyd George said -

The first requirement of Great Britain and the Allies is the complete restoration of the political, territorial, and economic independence of Belgium, Arabia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia, which are? in our judgment, entitled to the recognition of their separate national conditions.

Senator de Largie:

– It is the resolution of the Perth Conference in regard to anti-recruiting that I wish to hear read.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not discussing the question of recruiting or antirecruiting just now.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) As Senator Needham’s time is limited, I must ask honorable senators to refrain from interjecting.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– On the 8th January, 1918, President Wilson said -

Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro, shall be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea ; and the relation of several Balkan States to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic dependence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan States should be entered into.

The British Labour party on 17th December, 1917, affirmed -

The people of the Balkans and Poland should decide their own future, irrespective of Austrian, Turkish, or other foreign domination.

No. 2 resolution of the Perth Labour Conference reads -

That the European countries invaded during the present war be immediately evacuated, and their future territorial integrity guaranteed; provided that the ownership of disputed territories shall be determined- by a plebiscite of the inhabitants, under the protection of an International Commission. This course would dispose of Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and similar cases, on the democratic principle that all just Governments must rest on the consent of the governed.

Mr. Lloyd George, on 5th January, 1918, declared -

We feel that government, with the consent of the governed, must be the basis of any territorial settlement after the war.

President Wilson, on 8th January, 1918, declared for -

The evacuation of all Russian territory. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated. All French territory should be freed. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations . concerned must’ have equal weight with the equitable claims of the Government ‘whose title is to be determined. An independent Polish State should be enacted, which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should bc guaranteed by international covenant.

The British Labour party, on 17th December, 1917, affirmed -

The British Labour movement has no sympathy with the attempts made, now in this quarter and now in that, to convert this war into a war of conquest, whether what is sought to be acquired by force is territory or wealth; neither should the struggle be prolonged for a single day, once the conditions of a permanant peace can bo secured, merely for the sake of extending the boundaries of any State. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that not only restitution and reparation, but also certain territorial, adjustments are required. These adjustments can be arrived at by com mon agreement on the general principle of allowing all peoples to settle their own destinies.

No. 3 resolution of the Perth Conference says -

That, prior to the process of disbandment of the combatant armies, the soldiers shall be voluntarily utilized, under international control, for the restoration of the devastated territories, at the expense of the invaders.

Mr. Lloyd George, on 5th January, 1918, said-

Separation for the devastation of its (Belgium’s) -towns and provinces.

President Wilson, on 8th January, 1918, said -

Belgium must be evacuated and restored.

The British Labour party, on 17th December, 1917, declared that -

The restoration of the devastated areas of Prance, Belgium, Italy, East Prussia, Poland, and Russia must cover the peasantry.

No. 4 resolution of the Perth Conference reads -

That where an amicable arrangement cannot be reached by the Peace Conference in regard to captured colonies and dependencies, such territories shall be placed provisionally under international control.

Mr. Lloyd George, on 5th January, 1918, said -

The German colonies are held at the disposal of a conference, whose decisions must have primary regard to the wishes and interests of the native inhabitants.

President Wilson, on 8th January, 1918, said -

Free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, with the interests _ of the population concerned, having equal weight with the claims of the Government.

The British Labour party, on 17 th December, 1917, said -

All disputes must be submitted to an international High Court. All States must enter into a solemn agreement to make common cause against any State failing to adhere to this agreement.

There are four or five other resolutions of the Perth Conference in respect to all of which there is a similarity as between the Australian Labour party, Mr. Lloyd George, President Wilson, and the British Labour party. I have quoted those which I have already put upon record for the purpose of showing that the Australian Labour party has always been anxious to see the war fought to a victorious conclusion, and that with that object in view, members of its organizations have given of their blood freely. I say now that the whole social and economic system of the world will have to be revised. The old system has broken down andhas been cast aside, and just as the workers of this young nation played their part in the destruction of the old system, it follows that they should have a voice in the construction of the new. One of the finest” statements made by Mr. Lloyd George during the war was this, descriptive of what the war meant -

It isa cyclonic convulsion of nature, tearing up by the roots all modern forms of society, and scattering to the four winds of Heaven theflimsy trestles of modern civilization.

With that statement, made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the House of Commons, I think every one will agree.

Senator Bakhap:

– I do not agree with it at all. The object of the war was to establish civilization. We did not fight for the “trestles of modern civilization “ because they were flimsy.

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Barnes:

– It was your Government’s censorship which prevented it from reaching you and the rest of the people.

Senator MILLEN:

– The censorship had nothing to do with it. It was the conference itself that censored the report of its procedure. Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to remit the great interests of this country into the keeping of those who claim to speak for the Official Labour party. v

I now turn to the much more important matter, which was only rather casually alluded to, as a matter of fact, by Senator Needham. That is, in reference to the desirability of Australia being represented at the Peace Conference. It , is surely unnecessary for rae to state that the Government have this matter in hand; that the subject, indeed, has their closest consideration; that they are not indifferent to all that is involved in it; that there is no justification for supposing that upon a matter of such gravity the Government are either indifferent or negligent. I think that the Senate - even allowing for the political differences of opinion within its walls - would never seriously assume that’ the Government have not given that deep thought to the matter which it demands. But I hope that the Senate will understand the full significance of the statement that the Government have the subject in their very closest keeping and consideration. However, with a knowledge of much which it would not (be justifiable at this juncture to make public - with a knowledge, indeed, of all that is involved - the Government feel that, in the intererts of Australia, in common with the interests of the Empire, they cannot allow their hands to be forced by the springing upon them of a motion of this character, in regard to a matter of so grave and delicate a nature’. On behalf of the Government, 1 have already given notice of our intentions, dealing with one very important phase of all these matters, one which it may be assumed will occupy the attention of the plenipotentiaries at the Peace Conference. The Senate may accept my assurance that the Government are equally alert regarding those other matters in which Australia is interested, and which will similarly be the subject of discussion at the Peace Conference. But the” Government are not prepared at this stage to embarrass the situation by any statement with respect to the representation of this Dominion, or of the Dominions generally. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), as the Senate knows, is in London. The Government are in constant and regular communication with that gentleman. The Prime Minister knows what is taking place ; and the Cabinet here is freely communicating with the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister is with his colleagues in Australia. And - knowing that all steps are being taken which may be regarded as being in the best interests of this country - the Government will reserve to a more fitting time a full pronouncement of what is- taking place and of what is in contem plation. The Government are not unmindful of their duty;- and I am con-, vinced that not even party prejudice will suggest remissness on the part of the Government in regard to these matters. But the Government, conscious of the critical character of this present moment, and of the times ahead of us, feel that they can make no more definite pronouncement at this juncture than has already been made, coupled with the full and frank assurance that . they are alive to the importance of this whole matter, and will take every step that may be deemed necessary and desirable in the best interests of Australia.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I congratulate the mover of this motion (Senator Needham) upon having brought up for discussion at what is probably the most suitable time, a question which I think the Senate should discuss. I regret that Senator Millen should have endeavoured to make what I will call petty party capital by misrepresenting Labour’s war attitude at the Perth Conference. And, as my time is limited, I shall, from the records of the Perth Conference, briefly place . before the Senate certain facts, so that neither Senator Millen nor Senator de Largie may in future misrepresent what occurred at that conference. The conference divided its war, peace, and recruiting attitude under three heads. It dealt directly and specifically with its war attitude, and I shall read its decisions. They are as follows: -

Attitude to the War.

The attitude of Labour towards the pub licly declared objects of the war is what it was at the outbreak of the war.

– I do so, sir.

Several honorable senators inter jectiny,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators’ time is limited strictly by the Standing Orders, and I therefore ask honorable senators to refrain from such frequent and constant interjections, which are taking up the time of the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no desire to come into conflict with Senator de Largie, but there has been a tendency on the part of honorable senatorsto misrepresent the attitude of the Labour . party upon the war, at its recent Perth Conference.

I had” already begun to read the text of the resolutions of the conference, which, with respect to its attitude towards the war, reads as follows:-

The attitude of Labour towards the publiclydeclared -objects of the war is what it was at the outbreak of the war -
1. For Liberty and Democracy, and the independence of small nations.
2. For the honouring of publicly-made treaties.
3. For the maintenance of Public Inter national Law.
The aims of Labour in participating in the war purposed -
1. Assistance to Great Britain, under the voluntary system, in maintaining the publicly-declared objects for which she entered the war (as described in the first paragraph), and those only, to the best of our capability, consistent with Australia’s paramount and essential needs,
2. Bringing about an enduring world peace on terms of equity and justice to all mankind.

– In that case the military party, no doubt, would have been ‘ dominant, but the knowledge that the Allies were out to crush, not the German people, but German militarism, appealed to the German Democracy to such an extent that the whole force of German resistance broke down as from within,

I am not attempting to belittle the great efforts made by the army of the United States in the cause of freedom, but I am anxious to state the facts as to what our peace proposals really were. The resolution passed at the Perth Conference was as follows: -

That this Conference adopts the peace resolution carried by the State Conferences of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia.

Peace Proposals.

That, as the Governments of Europe, founded on class rule, and adopting the methods of secret diplomacy, have failed utterly to preserve peace or to brins; the present war within measurable distance of a conclusion, and whereas the existing capitalistic system of production for profit compels every nation constantly to seek new markets to exploit, inevitably leading to a periodic clash of rival interests, we contend that only by an organized system of production for use, under democratic control, can a recur rence of such calamities be permanently avoided. The present system, by fostering commercial rivalry, territorial greed, and dynastic ambitions, has created an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust among the Great Powers, which was the immediate cause of the present colossal struggle.

While the people suffer and die in millions, thousands of the ruling and privileged classes are amassing huge fortunes out of war profits; apparently existing Governments are making no sincere efforts to obtain a speedy peace, but. are devoting their whole endeavours to the continuance of the disastrous struggle. We are,, therefore, convinced that peace can only be accomplished by the united efforts of the workers of all the countries involved.

We, therefore, to quote the Sydney MorningHerald of 18th April, 1917, “ rejoice over the revolution in Russia,” and congratulate thepeople of that country .upon their efforts to abolish despotic power and class privileges, and urge the workers of every land where similar conditions exist to follow their example with the same magnificent courage and determination..

We are of opinion that a complete military victory by the Allies over the Central Powers, if possible, can only he accomplished by the further sacrifice of millions of human lives, the infliction of incalculable misery and suffering upon the survivors, the creation of an intolerable burden of debt, to the further impoverishment of the workers, who must bear such burdens, and the practical destruction of civilization among the white races of the world.

We, therefore, urge that immediate negotiations be initiated for an International Conference, for the purpose of arranging equitable terms of peace, on which Conference the working class organizations shall have adequate representation, and the inclusion of women delegates; and we further urge that the British self-governing Dominions and Ireland shall be granted separate representation thereon.

We submit that, in framing the terms of a lasting peace, the following principles should be observed: -

The right -of small nations (including Ireland) to political independence.’
That the European countries occupied by invading armies during the present war- be immediately evacuated.
That disputed provinces or territories shall choose their own forms of government, or shall be attached to such adjacent countries as the majority of their inhabitants may by plebiscite decide, on the democratic principle that all just government must rest on the consent of the governed. The free exercise “of such choice, under conditions of political equality, to be secured by the appointment of an international commission of control.

– I can only say that none of them has been mentioned.

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the White Australia policy? That is likely to be tinkered at there, and it is of very great importance to this country.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The only other matter which, so far as I know, has been the subject of criticism is represented by the Paris Conference resolutions. What attitude do honorable senators opposite take up upon those resolutions? Are they with Mr. Hughes in the view he takes of them, or are they against him? If they are against him, they are opposed to their professed Protectionist ideas. If they are with him, there is no reason why they should be specially represented at the Peace Conference. It would be a mere waste of effort to send a special representative of the other side to deal with the Paris resolutions, if they are in agreement with Mr. Hughes concerning them..

I hold that this motion has been moved for the purpose of covering up a matter about which we are very much interested at the present time, and that is the result of the ballot of the Labour organizations on the subject of recruiting. The country is anxiously watching to learn the result of that ballot, which will reveal the attitude of the Official Labour party on the question of the war. In my opinion, this motion is merely a red herring drawn across the track to distract attention from that ballot, because of the position in which honorable senators find themselves.

Senator Foll:

– It is camouflage.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is a very good word to describe it. I believe that there, is no need for more than one representative of Australia at the Peace Conference. When the war broke out, Mr. Fisher, as leader of the Australian Labour party at the time, pledged the

Unanimous support of the people of this country in every shape and form. . That wa3 in accordance with Australian public opinion, and Mr. Hughes can give expression to that opinion at the Peace Conference. He has been appointed by this country to represent that view. If it is suggested that there is another view, which has been hinted at without being explained, and that a representative of that view should go to the Peace Conference to discuss the anti-recruiting resolutions of the Perth Conference, let me say that it is altogether too late now to refer to that matter, as the war is over, and we do not need to trouble any more about recruiting. We have no need to appoint any other representative to the Peace Conference than the Australian representative who is now in London.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– The motion before the’ Senate has created an opportunity which I had intended to constitute yesterday, to enable the Senate to discuss this matter, not quite in the terms of Senator Needham’s motion, but in terms which I had already drafted. But, recognising that any argumentative note struck yesterday would De discordant in the midst of the chorus of jubilation which was ascending to the skies from the whole of Australia, I refrained from submitting a similar motion. I may say that I had intended to move the adjournment of the Senate, in order that the position and statements of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth (Mr. Hughes) in connexion with peace negotiations, and Australia’s interests therein, should be discussed.

In regard to representation at the Peace Conference, it has to be understood that, although Australia has performed a most creditable belligerent part in the war, she is not an independent nation, but a Dominion of the British Empire. The representation of Australia at the Peace Conference can only be secured through the courtesy of the nations that have been in alliance with the British Empire in the conflict, or who have acted as co-belligerents. We are within the Empire, and the Empire’s representatives appointed by the Imperial Government are perhaps the only ones to which the allied nations will consent to a status being accorded. But we can secure - indeed, we have secured and are in the possession of- - indirect representation at that Peace Conference. What I wish to urge on the consideration of the Administration was foreshadowed in the question that I put without notice to-day. It is urgently necessary that the people of the Commonwealth should, through their Parliament, make such representations as will establish beyond all doubt the right of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth to make articulate Australia’s aspirations in regard to peace conditions.

The Prime Minister has made certain complaints; and at this distance it is hard to say whether or not they are well founded. I think it is well understood that I am not one of the fulsome admirers of the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes; but I recognise that .he has in him, at least, some of the qualities of a great man; he has force and a certain individuality of character, which are most valuable in a man who has attained the position of a statesman. I may say that, on the evidence - even on ,the Prime Minister’s own statements - I am personally prepared to accord him full-souled support. The Imperial Government, as Senator Gardiner has said, will make a great mistake if it does not call into close consultation representatives of all the overseas Dominions which have substantially contributed to what has happily proved the Empire’s successful efforts in the war. I suppose that the terms of the armistice were very largely governed by the opinions of the military leaders of all the successful belligerent armies ; but we have an undoubted right to be consulted by our Imperial Mother in regard to peace conditions. I am well aware that peace must be largely conditioned by the fact that it has to be based on President Wilson’s fourteen points, or at least on thirteen of them, one having been very sensibly excluded for consideration at the instance, I suppose, of the representatives of the British Empire. It would have been suicide for us to have consented to a discussion of the maritime supremacy of our Empire - that supremacy which has created the Empire and keeps it in being. Happily, as I say, that matter has been excluded from consideration in the fixing of . peace conditions; but it is well for British statesmen to remember that the Empire is what I may call an exceptional empire: it is sui generis; -there never has been, and probably there never will be, another empire like it. The conditions which bind tha Dominions to the Empire are, in themselves, most remarkable. Because of the mistake in connexion with America more than a century ago, we have been practically enabled to obtain the legislative status of independent peoples, though outside nations only recognise us diplomatically as being within the ambit’ and circle of the British Empire.

The Prime Minister . at the present time is in such a position in London that an important newspaper has most insolently - and I. use the term after great consideration - stated that he does not represent the people of Australia. But on “the statement of Senator Gardiner himself, the Prime Minister does represent the people of Australia. If the Prime Minister of the Gommonwealth does not represent the people of Australia, who does?

Senator Gardiner:

– I was referring to his opinions on Protection, and that kind of thing.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator asked - “ If the Prime Minister is not regarded as the representative of the Commonwealth, who should be so regarded?” And the Prime Minister must be supported by the people of Australia. I am no mean judge of public opinion.

For weeks past I have listened intently to expression’s of opinion from responsible men in public places; and since the Prime Minister made his complaint, I have heard dozens and dozens of such men, who are perhaps not very ardent admirers, as they have not been long followers, of the right honorable gentleman, say, “I am with Hughes in this thing.” The Imperial Government had ‘ better remember that, with the full strength of the Empire exerted, it would probably be impossible to destroy it by means of a war, but that it might very easily and almost unconsciously be disintegrated by an unsatisfactory peace in which any of the great overseas Dominions regarded themselves as having been cavalierly treated. The Imperial Government should remember, and I take opportunity to ask the Australian Government to most seriously consider at the earliest possible moment, the position of the Prime Minister and his utterances. It is high time, in my opinion, that it was intimated to the people of Great Britain, and of the world,that the Prime Minister in his present position is supported by the people of the Commonwealth.

There is one other matter with which I desire to deal before I sit down. We must not forget that the terms of the armistice, imposed by military men, and apparently very severe, aro only preliminary to the peace which is to be conditioned by thirteen of President Wilson’s fourteen points. Does the question of reparation exclude Australia from making a claim for a financial indemnity - hot a penal indemnity, but a recouping of the expense that we have incurred in connexion with the war? I am doubtful about the matter, but I hope that President Wilson’s thirteen points do not exclude Australia from consideration. America and the Old Country may repair very quickly the losses they have sustained, because they are fully equipped with most valuable machinery, which can be readily adapted to modern industrial needs. That is not our position. We do not manufacture our machinery here, and we have withdrawn large sums from those financial resources that are necessary to develop this young country of ours; and it is only fair that a claim should be made on” our behalf for financial reparation. I do not say that we should make one penny profit out of the war, out the loser must pay the winner for having successfully defended his national life and his rights. That is not an unjust demand; and I hope it is one which will be added to the catalogue of requests which, I am sure, will, before long, be made and supported by the Government.

We should also be recouped the cost of repatriating our men. Are our children, and our children’s children, to be saddled with this debt simply because we stood up to the German people who menaced our national life? It may be said that the German people are now ashamed of what they have done. Not they ! Had they got to Paris, every German, as I interjected, would have been a supporter of the Kaiser, licked his boots, and exalted him to the highest. Let Deutschdom be anarchistic or socialistic; let Germany be a republic or an empire; let the German people retain or restore the Hohenzollerns, or do what they like - they should be made to pay. On behalf of Australia, the Prime Minister should be empowered by this Government to make such a demand, to see that Australia’s economic independence is respected in every particular, and to - deal satisfactorily with the matter in respect of which the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) lias given notice of motion. The Peace Conference cannot be expected to allow the representation of political parties. It could hardly be expected to allow representation of a Dominion within the Empire. Are the Philippine Islands to be represented in connexion with the American delegation to the Peace Conference? And is Honololu to be so represented ? I do hot ask that, but I do ask that the Imperial authorities be told, and in no measured terms, that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth does represent the Australian people, and that it is .most urgent for them to take him into their councils, and consider his undoubtedly just requests.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– In accordance with instructions, which were practically issued to me by the Senate yesterday, to present- to-day to the Governor-General the address passed yesterday by the Senate to His Majesty the King, I desire to inform the Senate that His Excellency will be on the steps of Parliament House, to receive the address, soon after half-past 4 o’clock. Therefore, I think this would be a convenient time to suspend the sitting, as, no doubt, honorable senators would like to be present and listen to what might be said. I shall be glad if as many honorable senators as can find it convenient will accompany me to present the address to His Excellency. I shall resume the chair at 8 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from ff-22 to 8 p.m.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- The question raised by Senator Needham is a very important one, and one upon which the Senate may well spend the whole of the period allowed by our Standing Orders for its discussion. The Government ask somewhat indignantly why Labour has any desire to be represented at the Peace Conference. Apparently they “are content to assume that at that Conference their own representatives will be able to speak for Australia in such a manner as to obviate the possibility of complaints from this side of the world regarding the decisions at which it will arrive. Possibly they are right. But I think they are wrong. They have already sent <to the Old Country two ‘representatives, in the persons of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and Sir Joseph Cook, confident that these gentlemen would be able to speak for Australia upon any question which might arise in regard to bringing the war to a successful termination. But we have recently learned from the’ newspapers - and I do not believe that anybody will question the accuracy of the statements -which they have published - the opinions which are held of Mr. Hughes by responsible persons in Great Britain. When he left our shores we were led to believe that he was to be invited to attend all the Conferences to be held in the Old Country at which the * terms of peace would be discussed. But we have now learned, through the medium of the press, that, though he was in England all the time the proceedings in relation to the armistice were in progress, his presence there was quite ignored. He was not invited to attend the Conference which determined the conditions of the armistice, and at which the Government thought he would have been at liberty to express their views. In other words, he has been treated in England just as any ordinary citizen has been treated. He is thought no more of there than the commonest citizen.

Senator Earle:

– Was any invitation extended to the representatives of Canada, South Africa, or New Zealand?

Senator BARNES:

– I do not know. But the Government sent Mr. Hughes to the Old Country for the specific purpose of voicing their views in relation to our war aims. Notwithstanding that, his presence there has been completely ignored.

The terms of peace will probably be arranged by a Conference of representatives of the Allied countries, and Australia will have no opportunity of enlightening them as to the real views of this Commonwealth upon many important questions. It has been asked, “Will the Conference discuss conscription?” I do not suppose that that question will come before it. But it will certainly consider many other questions in which Australia is vitally interested, and upon which she has a right to be heard. I venture to say that the Peace Conference will be composed almost entirely of persons who represent the elements that governed Europe prior to the outbreak of the war. We may be quite certain that they will not voice the opinions of the Democracies of the world. As a matter of fact,, the British Ministry was elected before the outbreak of hostilities, on a particularly restricted’ franchise, and, consequently, its members cannot claim that they represent the views, which are entertained by the people of the Old Country.

Senator Pratten:

– Who would the honorable senator substitute for Mr. Lloyd George ?

Senator BARNES:

- Mr. Lloyd George may be all right. I have no desire to de tract from his meritorious services, but I say that to’ insure proper representation at the Peace Conference, ‘even of the heart of our own Empire, delegates to it should be elected from the Imperial Parliament after a general election had been held in Britain. That would afford all the men who will have returned from the Front, the men who have saved the Empire, an opportunity to record their votes - an opportunity which they were denied prior to the outbreak of war. The women ~ of England, too, who have done so much in the Empire’s cause, will, ‘under existing conditions, not be represented at the Peace Conference,, because they have never yet been allowed to exercise the franchise.

– I do not know that we have ever discussed them. Most of those on this side have, when opportunity has occurred, voiced the opinion, which I hold myself, that it is impossible to give effect to the views of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in that direction, and no sane man of eminence holds the contrary opinion. I was glad to see that President Wilson and the rest of them repudiated the portion of Mr. Hughes’ remarks which contained those views.

Other matters will come before the Conference in regard to which this party’s opinions might have a big influence. I think that there cannot be a permanent peace unless every country represented at the Conference is prepared to pledge itself to give its people a proper opportunity to express their views. When England entered the war, half her people were without the franchise, Australia being the only country that went into thewar in possession of a proper franchise,, under which every man and woman of twenty-one years of age and upwards can give effect to his or her views through theballotbox. There can be no permanentand satisfactory settlement of national affairs unless every country that becomes a party to a League of Nations pledgesitself to give a franchise to its people, and to educate them up to a certain standard. To do that would be to lay the foundation of a world peace securely and well; because I cannot think that any civilized people would willingly plunge itself, or any other nation, into war.

As to the plea for no indemnities which comes from men safe in their seats in this Senate, I remind the Senate that after the failure of the mighty German offensive against the Allied line on the Western Front, the only two parties in the world who wanted peace by negotiation were the Official Labour party in Australia and the Kaiser and his military autocracy in Germany. I am led to contrast the attitude of these so-called leaders of the Labour party in Australia with the attitude of Labour in the United States of America and Canada, and will these “ Johnny-come-latelies, these socalled Labour leaders in Australia, deny that the men in the forefront of the movement in America and Canada are just as intensely and vitallv concerned about the true interests of Labour as they themselves are? The pronouncements of the American leaders ring with the true note of Labour, not the false note that has rung of late and rung for over long in this country. According to the daily press of the 10th October last -

The American Federation of Labour announces that its attitude is one of complete opposition to any peace overtures at the present time, and that the enemy’s lines should be battered until the terms of peace are dictated in Berlin.

Had the Labour- leaders in Australia said that, had they kept in tune with Labour sentiment throughout the world, I should be amongst them still. On the same date the press reported that -

Mr. Moore, President of the Labour Congress in Canada, says that it is impossible for the Canadian Labour party to accept a peace which would betray the dead, and leave the possibility of new generations being engulfed in a new world catastrophe. Such a peace it would be if entered into with the military caste of Germany, with the praise of militarism still upon their lips.

In that message we distinguish the true spirit of Labour, reconciling the vital interests of the workers with the best welfare of their country. Had Labour in this country only spoken with the same patriotic intensity and earnestness, I should still be sitting in this Senate as a member of the parliamentary Labour party, which, instead of being the political outcasts of the Commonwealth, as they are now, would be still in charge of the Treasury bench to-day. Will any man dare to tell me that the two Labour authorities whom I have quoted are not as good Labour men as any who ever walked -in shoe leather, aye, and better than the so-called leaders of the Labour party in Australia?

Another fallacy that is being exploited to its utmost is that the Official Labour party’s war policy is identical with President Wilson’s fourteen points, and his attitude generally. That I flatly contradict; the two policies bear no resemblance. A cardinal feature of President Wilson’s conditions was expressed in the press of 25th October by his Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lansing -

Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action-

That is the point. What we lack in Australia is plain speaking and straightforward action - the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the worlddo not, and cannot, trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace, and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war, the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

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

Senator LYNCH:

– I have shown that President Wilson was not prepared to deal with or recognise the Kaiser, and the Official Labour party were. That is the vital point of difference between them.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– - In his intensely ‘ excited speech Senator Lynch made a number of strong misstatements. It might, therefore, be just as well to state a fact or two. The honorable senator had a good deal to say about the attitude of Labour on the question of “no indemnities and no annexations,” and carefully omitted the word “ penal “ before “ annexations,” until an interjection by Senator O’Loghlin compelled him to include it. He tried to make the Senate and the country - through so much of the reports of the Senate’s proceedings as get into the columns of the newspapers - believe something that actually did not take place. He tried to put into the mouth of the Official Labour party, as he calls it, or the Australian Labour party, as it really is, words that it did not use.

Senator Lynch:

– The name was of your own choosing, by resolution; you are ashamed of your own name.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It It was not of our choosing. These are old tricks of the honorable senator. Those who know him well do’ not take much notice of him when he gets into the intensely excited frame of mind that he displayed to-night.

The resolution finally adopted at the Perth Conference with regard to the ‘captured German Possessions, as shown in the official report of the conference, a document which anybody can purchase for a few pence, is as follows: -

That this Conference, representing the whole of the Australian Labour party, expresses its earnest hope that, in negotiating for peace, Britain will not be delayed or embarrassed by the statement that Australia insists on the retention of the captured Pacific Possessions.

– O - Of course it would.

The mover of the motion asks that the representatives of more than half the Australian people should have a voice at the Peace table.

Senator Guthrie:

– They do not represent half the Australian people to-day.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– On On the two occasions on which the most vital . question ever put before the people of this country for indorsement or rejection was decided, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) was defeated, and defeated on the second occasion by a far bigger majority than on the first. We say to-day, as _ representing half, and more than half, of the people, that the present Prime Minister has no mandate from Australia to speak on behalf of Australia as a whole. That is the view, not only of the people on our side, but of some of the important newspapers in London. The London Daily News - a paper of some importance - said on 29th June-

Mr. Hughes’ speech to the London Chamber of Commerce has been greeted with acclamation by the Times and the Morning Post. That is entirely natural. But their praise makes the more necessary an explanation of Mr. Hughes’ own position. In what character did he make this speech, and in whose name was be speaking? Mr. Hughes has three claims tobe heard in this country. Though the war policy with which he is identified has been twice decisively defeated, he is still Prime Minister of Australia.

Honourble Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I am glad of those cheers, because . they enable me to point out that Mr. Hughes is still Prime Minister only because he valued his place and his pay above his word of honour as a public man; only because he put political power before his publicly pledged word to the people of Australia as a public man. On the second occasion, on the most vital issue that the people were ever asked to decide, he said to them,- “ Without this power the Government cannot continue to govern this country, and will not attempt to do so.” Within twentyfour hours of finding that he was defeated he resigned, but he walked out of one door and came in the next. He resigned, and had himself reinstated. It is only because of the most flagrant violation of the public word of a public man ever made by any prominent statesman in the world’s history that Mr. Hughes is Prime Minister to-day, and that his present colleagues are sitting on the Ministerial bench with him. That is well known to the people, and is well known to .the gentlemen sitting behind him in both branches of the Parliament, and they do not like it. Not one of his own supporters was found “ so poor to do him reverence.” Not one of them dared to attempt any reasonable justification for the attitude which he and his Government adopted, and which made him Prime Minister again, enabling him to go to London as the so-called mouthpiece of the

Australian people. He is no more the real mouthpiece of the people of Australia to-day than any other man in it. It cannot be too often repeated that he was twice decisively defeated on the greatest question ever put to the Australian people, the second time by a far bigger majority than the first. On the second campaign he told the people, “ Defeat me on this question, and I resign,” and their votes showed that they wanted him to resign. He tried to make it appear that he was keeping his word, by crawling out of one door as Prime Minister and crawling in at another, and then got himself sent to London as the mouthpiece of the Australian people.

Senator Foll:

– Mr. Fisher was defeated at a referendum.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– T - The honorable senator can rise in his place afterwards and defend Mr. Hughes and his Queensland police.

Another quotation showing the estimation in which Mr. .Hughes is held in London may be * interesting. He is not truly representative of the people of Australia, and he certainly does not represent the people of Great Britain. Yet this is the man who, according to the Ministerial party, represents the whole of the Australian people. The following paragraph appeared in the London Daily Chronicle of the 30th July last: -

Mr. LeesSmith, M.P., moved, and Mr. Chancellor, M.P.j seconded, the following resolution: “ The committee wish to draw the attention of Radicals throughout the country to the speeches of Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, who has become the spokesman of the party of a fanatical Tariff war, which would be a death-blow to a league of nations. Mr. Hughes does not speak for the Democracy of Australia, where he is now discredited, and his interference in British party politics is a gross breach of the hospitality of this country.”

This journal knew the position; it knew that the Democracy of Australia had turned down Mr. Hughes.

Senator de Largie:

– That is one of the free-trade “ rags “ of Great Britain.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– If If I were ‘ in Great Britain I probably would be a free trader, but in Australia, because of the difference in the environments, I am not. However, Mr. Hughes cannot claim to represent the Democracy of Australia, seeing that, when he took a vote of the people in December last on the biggest question that could be put to them, the majority voted against him. He certainly does not represent the views of the people of Great Britain, as I could show by quotations from half-a-dozen British papers.

Senator Reid:

– They are all freetrade “ rags “

Senator O’KEEFE:

– T - They do not forget the fact, which Senator Reid apparently would like to forget, that Mr. Hughes does not represent the people of A ustralia.

In the fifteen minutes allotted, to me on a motion of this kind I cannot deal with this question in all its phases. I would like to have had a little more time in order to show that the other extravagant statements to which Senator Lynch ha3 just given utterance are equally wrong. I can say, in conclusion, that if the people of Australia to-morrow had the chance they would declare by an overwhelming majority that, although they might leave Mr. Hughes in Europe to represent one portion of the people of this country, some other man should also go overseas in order to represent another portion of the people of the Commonwealth, which we claim to be the bigger portion. Mr. Hughes is only in Great Britain because he broke his word . as a pledge had never been broken before so flagrantly by any public man. He could not have got to Great Britain if he had kept his word. If he had not been guilty of a greater violation of political morality and public honour than is to be found on record in the history of the world’s politics, he would not have found himself in Great Britain to-day, where he is not representing even half of the people of Australia.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– The discussion we have had today in regard to the terms of peace has been anything but illuminating from many stand-points. It has occurred to me that the time is rapidly coming when we shall have in Australia a good many “ Bill Adams V” who will claim the credit for having won the war.

Senator Barker:

– Your party has done that long ago.

Senator PRATTEN:

– The National party has done its best to win the war, and as a consequence of that best has added to the sum total of the might of the Allies in bringing about the present satisfactory position. In recalling the various public pronouncements made from time to time in connexion with what the Allies had been fighting for, one commences with a statement made by Mr. Asquith very early in the conflict concerning Great Britain’s main object in entering into the great struggle. Speaking from memory, I think his pronouncement was that Great Britain had been loath to unsheath the sword, but that she would not sheath it again until German militarism had been destroyed for ever, that there could be no compromise by meeting Germany on terms of equality at the conference table, that there could be no peace by negotiation, and that the world had to choose between the doctrines of “ might is right “ or “ right is might.” Following this pronouncement, we had a statement by Mr. Lloyd George on his accession to office, and which was made practically on behalf of Great Britain and France, that the rights of the small nations had to be protected, that Turkey in Europe had to disappear, and that various other international adjustments had to be made. We next had pronouncements by the British Labour party and the President of the United States of America, and ‘ultimately we had the Perth Labour Conference resolutions, which, in my opinion, were but a plagiarism or a hotchpotch of the various public pronouncements that had been made from time to time since the beginning of the war, added to by a good slice of wind pudding in order to tickle the ears of the electors of Australia. This was done at a time when the position was most depressing. When the Labour party met; in conference in June last the world was trembling, not knowing where the next blow of Germany would fall, and it did seem that the “bitter-enders” and those who would make no compromise with the enemy would possibly have to give way, and it may have been in the minds of some of the delegates at that celebrated conference that they might have to hedge a bit and make some sort of prophecy of policy that might turn out true, so that in some future election they might say to the Win-the-war party, “ If you had taken our advice you would have saved thousands of lives and millions of pounds.” In any case, no matter what might .have been in the minds of the delegates, there was no mistaking what they meant, for, as reported in the columns of the Age of 22nd June last, Mr. Arthur Hae - I do not suppose my friends opposite will say that he is not representative of the Official Australian Labour party - speaking immediately after the conference, said -

The highest duty of Australia is now to bring strong united pressure on the Imperial Government in the direction of peace. He did not propose to accept peace on German terms; but he proposed to talk over matters with her representatives on a basis of equality.

In view of the victorious ending which has how been achieved, that statement will never be forgotten by the electors of Australia. And had that advice been accepted, the result of peace by negotiation - as we know the Gorman temperament and character - would merely have postponed the termination of this struggle to the bitter end, and we would have been heaping up trouble for ourselves and our children again.

In my strong opinion, there can be no better representative of the Australian Democracy at the other end of the world to-day than the present Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes). Indeed, in the whole of his public pronouncements, not only during his visit to England iti 1916, but in the course of his present visit also, he has led the thoughts of tlie people, and, perhaps, of many qf the statesmen of England, in the direction of a victory such as we have just accomplished. He has led the thoughts of Australia with regard to the retention by Australia, or by Allied control, of German Possessions in tlie Pacific. He has led the thoughts of

Australia in the direction that we should insist upon our own economic independence. And the Prime Minister represents to-day 95 per cent, of the thought of the whole of the electors of Australia. What better representative, consequently, can we have than the present Prime Minister, who has shown throughout the whole of his public speeches that he is, first and last, a patriotic Briton, that he believes thoroughly in the Empire, and that he has seen clearly the end.

Senator McDougall:

– That is not what the honorable senator used to say about him.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I have been honest in regard to my opinions of the actions of the Prime Minister in England. I witnessed much of the impression which he made upon that stolid, solid race in 1916. I had the honour of being attached, as a volunteer, by Mr. Lloyd George, to the Parliamentary Munitions Committee; and I was sent ,to many of the munitions factories throughout the Midlands, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and I spent much time among the miners of South Wales, in order to help stimulate the workers in the great munitions campaign then being conducted. Portion of my duties also was to assist as best I could in the settlement of small disputes as they might arise. I was present to hear addresses delivered by the Australian Prime Minister before the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and before the London Chamber of Commerce. I heard what he then had to say, and saw much of the stimulation which our Prime Minister had upon the British community in what were then very depressing times. We had but recently evacuated Gallipoli. Bulgaria had come in against the Allies. Greece was treacherous; and, altogether, the fortunes of the Allies were at a low ebb. When William Morris Hughes came among the British community, and, by directing the thoughts of the people along the proper channels, by enunciating the “ bitter end “ policy, and by insisting that we could not end the war until Germany had been defeated, he did a great deal to help forward the proper spirit of England. Many of us in England at that time thought that, whatever could be said with regard to the use made of Mr. Hughes by the Northcliffe press, our Prime Minister did more than any other individual to pave the way for the displacement of the Asquith Government and the incoming of Mr. Lloyd George, who has brought us now to -this glorious end. No man, knowing the conditions of England in 1915-16, could well have conceived that this great change could have been brought about, and that the British public could have been held to the grip of victory all the time, despite the many other influences at work. And, if we are to give the man his due, and take the proper perspective of the whole situation, “William Morris Hughes has done more than any other individual outside of England to win the war. I speak with some personal experience of what was going on in the Old Country at that dark time; and I repeat that the Prime Minister of Australia, by now insisting upon a Monroe doctrine for the South Pacific, and by claiming that we shall have economic independence in Australia in order that we may give preference to whom we like, and how we like, is voicing the opinions of 95 per cent, of the electors. And those opinions will carry weight, if pronounced at the Peace Conference, by the voice of William Morris Hughes, who has been consistent right through. It was he who was responsible for the Paris Conference economic resolutions; and I ask honorable senators opposite, do they agree that Australia must have economic independence? Do they agree that the German flag shall not again fly in the Pacific? Do they agree that Germany shall have no further jumping-off place from which to threaten our national safety ? If they agree with all that, then they must realize that the principle of the freedom of the seas has been already achieved under the present armistice terms. If ever there was a man who could voice our sentiments, by the strength of his grip on the British public, and by the strength of his personality and his clear sight, it is William Morris Hughes. He, I hope, will be the representative of Australia ; and he will represent Australia well.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [8.57]. - I would not have risen to speak but for the direct challenge of Senator Lynch as to my views upon two questions. First, however, I desire to indorse entirely the peace and war proposals of the Perth Labour Conference. Honorable senators who twit the Labour party for its advocacy of peace by negotiation forget to mention that the Labour party also laid down the conditions on which that peace should be entered into. Those conditions were the evacuation of invaded territories, the freedom of small nations, and reparation for injuries done. Those are practically the conditions upon which the terms of the armistice are now established, and I am not ashamed to stand upon any public platform in Australia and advocate them. The honorable senator also quoted Canada. Australia has no need to be ashamed in comparison with Canada or any other of the British Dominions as to what she has done towards the attainment of the termination of the war.

Senator de Largie:

– Would the honorable senator agree to the evacuation of German New Guinea?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– W - With regard to German New Guinea, and to the Pacific Islands generally, I favour the dictum pronounced by the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Lloyd George, and indorsed, practically, by President Wilson, namely, that those Possessions should be placed under the control of an International Commission. And when I remember the number of interests in the Pacific, and the number of nations having Possessions there - France, Japan, Holland, America - it appears to me to be rather a large order to say that our little island should claim a dominant position in the disposal of those Possessions. Concerning Canada, I point out that that Dominion, with 70 per cent, more population than Australia, has sent only about 25 per cent, more troops. Canada has lost only 50,000 men - and that, after all, is the great test, because casualties are based upon different methods of calculation in different Armies. Canada has lost by death in action, and from wounds. 50,000 men.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Order! I scarcely think that that comes under the heading of the motion at present under discussion.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN I am replying to a statement made by Senator Lynch, who challenged me on this question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is true that Senator Lynch put forward the contention that the Labour party had not, as they claimed, any inherent right to separate representation at the Peace Conference. He pointed out the difference between the expressed opinions of the Canadian Labour party and those of the Australian Labour party, but he went no further. He did not attempt to compare the war efforts of the two countries, which have nothing to do with the representation of Labour at the Peace Conference.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I - I do not know that the question of Canada’s position has anything to do with the question which we are discussing, and I should not have referred to it if Senator Lynch, who preceded me, had not directly challenged me with regard to it. We are assured that the British Labour party will be represented at the Peace Conference shortly to be held.

Senator Pearce:

– If they remain, in the Government.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.What authority has the Minister for that statement?

Senator Pearce:

– The authority of Mr. Lloyd George. In to-day’s press he is reported to have said that if the representatives of Labour remain in the Government, the question of their representation at the Peace Conference will be considered.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– T - There are only four members of the British Labour pa.ty in the British Coalition Government, and they have been requested to withdraw from it. They do not represent the great Labour party in Great Britain, and on the eve of a general election it remains to be seen whether the British Labour party will not insist upon being represented at the Peace Conference. If they are, surely the Labour movement in Australia, which has done so much to bring this war to a successful termination, is also entitled to some representation. I do not claim that it is entitled to the same representation that the great British Labour party, which is so far more numerous, should have, but it certainly should be represented. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), in respect of great issues that he has put before the country on two occasions, has been turned down by the majority of the people, and I do not think he is entitled to claim that he represents Australia, since he represents only a section of the people.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I do not propose to discuss the general question, since it has already been ably dealt with by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen), but I shall “deal with certain phases of it arising out of the claims put forward, in the course of this debate, for the representation of the Official Labour party at the Peace Conference. I use the word “ Official “ deliberately, and with that distinction I assert that Labour will be represented at the Peace Conference, and represented by one of the greatest men that the Labour movement in Australia has ever produced. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is still a Labour man in a broader sense than any of those who now masquerade under the guise of Official Labourites, and he carries with him, moreover, the support not only of the Liberal electors of this country, but of thousands of sterling Labour voters who never vote but for Labour, and who followed the lead of Mr. Hughes and others of us because we were true to our country.

– I wish to remind honorable senators on the other side who endeavour to ignore the Labour party in Australia that only a few days ago the Kaiser arrogated to himself the right to speak for the people of Germany, and to-day the people of that country are speaking for themselves in an unmistakable manner. If the party opposite proceed in the way they are doing it is very doubtful what may take place in some British communities that we know of. If they think that the workers of this country will tamely submit year after year to their kind of legislation they will be as much deceived as the Kaiser is to-day. Only a few days ago kings, dukes, and other persons of that description were plentiful in Germany. I think there were twentytwo of them, but where are they to-day ? You can buy them for a few pence each. If honorable senators opposite think that the workers of this country can be ignored in the way they suggest, they will find themselves very much deceived, possibly in the near future.

The men who left Australia, not to talk, but to fight, were mainly drawn from the workers. We all know as a fact that the union element which is the basis of the Labour movement here has been the most largely represented element in the Australian Imperial Force. One union alone - the Australian Workers Union - has sent more than 30,000 members to the Front; and yet honorable senators opposite propose that Labour shall have no representation whatever at the Peace table. If the figures can be obtained, as I dare say they will in the near future, it will be found that the members of the Australian Imperial Force included possibly 250,000 members of Australian trade unions; and yet we are told that after all their sacrifices they are to have no representation. I trust that the Government will see the folly of attempting to put a proposal of this kind into effect, quite regardless of what the British Government or any other Government may do.

Some question has been raised here as to the attitude of honorable senators on this side on the question of disputed territories.

Senator Fairbairn:

– We should all like to know that attitude.

Senator GRANT:

– I can tell the honorable senator that if he imagines that the workers of the country will tolerate the taxation of children’s amusement tickets, while large land-owners of his type, are let off scot-free, he is very much mistaken; and as soon as the Labour party comes into power-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator GRANT:

– It is just as’ well to remind some honorable senators of the true position. As I say, honorable senators opposite are anxious to know our attitude in regard to New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, and the German Possessions in Africa. So far as I am concerned, I believe in getting all I can, and holding on to all I have got; and that, I think, is the policy of Great Britain. Shortly after the war broke out. Great Britain annexed Egypt for good - 1,000,000 square miles of country - and I think that, when the war terminates, although we cannot say what the Allies may agree to, we shall find Great Britain holding fast to New Guinea, nearly all l.he Pacific Islands, German East Africa, and South- West Africa, together with a few other places. Personally, I- hope that Alsace-Lorraine will be restored to France, and I should not mind if Luxemberg were also attached to that country. Further, it might be well if the Allies held on to the neutral zone on the right side of the Rhine; but later on, when the workers in that part of the world develop the same opinion as I hold, they will compel the land-owners there-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator GRANT:

– Much objection has been raised to the attitude of the Labour party towards recruiting and war in general. So far as I can ascertain, the attitude of the party outside Parliament towards the resolutions of the Perth Conference is somewhat of a hostile character. I cannot speak with authority for Victoria. but in South Australia the Labour party outside Parliament carried this resolution -

That we stand by the voluntary system, and that it be left solely to the individual as to whether he shall enlist or assist on the recruiting platform.

That was a definite expression of opinion by the South Australian Labour party at their annual conference this year, and according to a newspaper report of the proceedings -

It was decided not to accept the recommendation of the Perth Labour Conference regarding a ballot of members of affiliated organizations, and, as far as South Australia is concerned, no further action will bc taken in this matter. The consensus of opinion here is that the taking of the ballot cannot produce any tangible result, and members generally were opposed to the idea of voting on a ballot slip which contains a recommendation as to how the individual should vote.

That decision, I think, crystallizes the position in South Australia. I have seen reports in the press, and I think, also, in a circular issued by Senator Guy, as secretary of the Tasmanian Labour party, to the effect that no action would be taken in that State with reference to the ballot. It will be seen that in South Australia and Tasmania the Labour movement has taken no part in the ballot. We must remember that Tasmania has all along sent a very fair proportion of Labourites into this Chamber and the other branch of the Legislature, and the same may be said of South Australia.

In the case of New South Wales, returns of the ballot which has been in progress for some time past have not been published, and, therefore, I cannot give final figures. I am inclined to think, however, that on occasions the facts in regard to the ballot have been wrongly reported. I was present at a meeting of the Annandale branch of the Labour League when a vote was taken, and I know the figures. In the Sunday Times report of that proceeding, it was stated that there were 222 on the “ Yes “ side and 1 on the “ No “ side ; and I have no hesitation in saying that that report was absolutely incorrect, inasmuch as the figures given did not represent the actual figures in the slightest degree.

There is a vigorous Labour League in Rozelle, New South Wales, which carried the following resolution : -

That the executive be informed, with all due respect, that in the opinion of the Rozelle branch of the Australian Labour party, the taking of the ballot recommended by the Perth Labour Conference is detrimental to the best interests of Labour, being indiscreet, injudicious, and ‘inexpedient, and whether resolved in the affirmative or the negative is calculated to bring the Australian Labour movement into contempt, contumely, and disrepute.

That branch of the Labour League has always returned Labour men to the State Parliament, and nearly always to the other branch of this Legislature, while they have given a substantial majority of votes to the Labour senatorial candidates. The Sydney Labour Council, representing the whole of the unions in that State, carried the following resolution : -

That we recommend the Australian Labour party to withdraw their war ballot, owing to the Government interfering with the ballot by instructing Mr. D. K. Picken, Director of War Propaganda, to issue leaflet1! to all unions and leagues.

The Dalley and Cook Federal Council carried the following motion: -

That this council protests, through the State Executive, to the Federal Executive against the form in which the resolution on recruiting has been placed before the people . of this State, as iE does not express the workingclass attitude towards the war.

Senator Bakhap:

– What is all this intended to prove ?

Senator GRANT:

– It is intended to prove that the attitude of Labour has not been correctly interpreted by the action of the delegates at the Perth Conference. The Sydney Sun, of 9th October, referring to the attitude of the Bricklayers Union, stated -

The Bricklayers Union will discuss the Australian Labour party’s war ballot on Monday evening next. The ‘subject was discussed on 30th September last, and referred to a” special meeting in conjunction with the One Big Union scheme. At that meeting, however, the Australian Labour party’s ballot was not considered, and was again deferred until Monday evening next.

That where an amicable arrangement cannot be reached by the Peace Conference in regard to captured colonies and dependencies, such territories shall toe placed provisionally under international control.

Mr. Lloyd George has said that ;

The German colonies are held at the disposal of a Conference whose decisions must have primary regard to the wishes and interests of the native inhabitants.

President Wilson has demanded -

Free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, with the interests of the population concerned having equal weight with the claims of the Government.

The British Labour party has declared that-

All disputes must be submitted to an inter national High Court. All States must enter into a solemn agreement to make common cause against any State failing to adhere to this agreement.

Senator- Pratten made the statement that the resolutions of the Perth Conference savoured of plagiarism; ‘but over two years ago the New South Wales Labour Conference drafted practically the same proposals as were indorsed by the InterState Labour Conference at Perth. Senators de Largie, Pearce, and Lynch referred to the State Conferences as representing only sections of the Labour movement; but it is not much more than two years since those senators would have regarded the State Conferences differently, and would have bowed to the will of the Inter-State Conference. I have merely to add that, on moving the motion, I was careful not to introduce party feeling, and I am sorry that acrimony was shown by some of my ex-colleagues. I hold that when the Peace Conference assembles, representatives of Australian Labour in this Parliament, elected by the people of Australia, should have a voice in its decisions.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 7680

THE WAR

Armistice with Germany : Address to His Majesty the King.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Accompanied by honorable senators, I this afternoon, on the steps of . Parliament House, presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, for presentation to His Majesty the King, the address agreed to by the Senate yesterday. His Excellency was pleased to reply in the following terms: -

Mr President:

–

It is with feelings of deep emotion that on this the greatest day in the history of our Empire I receive the addresses in which both Houses of the Australian Parliament express their sentiments of loyalty to His Majesty the King, and tender their congratulations on the great victory which, after four and a quarter years of desperate fighting, has crowned the arms of the Allies.

Australia remembers with pride the part played by her sons in the mighty struggle, and, having borne her share of the heat and burden of the day, she rejoices _ with proud thankfulness in the overwhelming success achieved, under God’s Providence, by the relentless pressure of the Navy, the heroic valour of the soldiers, and by the patient tenacity of the peoples of the British Empire and of the Allies.

I shall have the honour, Mr. President, of forthwith transmitting to His Majesty the King the loyal message which von have tendered to me on behalf of the Senate.

page 7680

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Service on Queensland Coast.

Senator MAUGHAN:

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

Is the Minister aware whether the existing shipping allocation, in so far as the Queensland port of Mackay is concerned, is most unsatisfactory and seriously detrimental to the commercial and industrial activities of that port?
Have- the pressing representations by the State member for Mackay to the Queensland Shipping Board, and through the State’ Premier to the Commonwealth Government, been set aside, and, if. so, why?
Does the Government not think that whatever shipping is available should be allocated equitably amongst the Queensland ports concerned ?
Is the Minister aware whether ships, particularly those of the Adelaide S.S. Company, travelling northand returning from Cairns south, pass that port, notwithstanding that both mails and passengers and freight are available?
Will the Minister issue -instructions that no vessel trading on the Queensland coast be permitted to pass any of the important ports that require their services?
Does not the Minister consider that as the port of Mackay is not connected by railway with the south or north, the position there demands especial and urgent consideration?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

No. All applications for space for Mackay cargo have been met, except very recent orders.
The only representations made were that the steamers belonging to the Adelaide Steamship Company (running under requisition) should call at Mackay going north and coming south. Those representations were thoroughly investigated. (See answer to No. 4.)
Each port has been treated equitably after taking the -whole of the circumstances into consideration. Cargo, other than beer, for all northern ports of Queensland has been given’ preference, and there is at present no accumulation of such cargo. Beer from Victoria is not allowed to be shipped if other more necessary cargo is available for shipment.
Arrangements have been made whereby the Adelaide Steam-ship Company’s passenger steamers call at Mackay coming southwards; but after investigation it was found impracticable for these vessels to call at Mackay on the northward trip.
If such an instruction were issued, it would prevent the ships being used to the best advantage.
The position of Mackay has received special and urgent consideration on the grounds stated in the question.

page 7681

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

District Allowance - Increments

Senator NEEDHAM:

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

Is he aware whether Mr. Skewes, when appearing on behalf of the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner and the PostmasterGeneral in a recent case before the Arbitration Court, stated that action would be taken to remove the existing 5 per cent, allowance from Western Australian officers?
If Mr. Skewes made that statement, what is the reason for the intention to remove the existing 5 per cent, allowance to officers of the Commonwealth Public Service in Western Australia?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

The statement made in the Arbitration Court by the Acting Commissioners representative was that if a war bonus were granted officers in Western Australia to meet increased cost of living, the existing 5 per cent, allowance for that State should be abolished.
The reason is that when the allowance waa first granted in 1911, the cost of living in Western Australia, as compared with the eastern States, warranted the .concession. This disparity in cost of living has long .since disappeared, and therefore no justification now exists, in the Acting Commissioner’s opinion, for continuance of the allowance.

Senator GRANT:

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

Is it a fact that action has been taken to defer the payment of increments to public servants, or to any section of them, receiving £200 per annum and overt
If so, w.hy?

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

– The Department of the Treasury has furnished the following information : -

Yes.
It is usual to defer payment of increments to the higher salaries until Parliament has approved of their payment by passing the Estimates.

page 7681

QUESTION

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION

Marconi Coy. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth.

Senator LONG:

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

If he will lay upon the table of the Senate all papers and reports in connexion with the High Court case of Marconi Coy. Ltd. against the Commonwealth Government, settled in 1914?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– This is a responsibility of the Acting Minister for the Navy, who has charge of all matters relating to wireless telegraphy in the Commonwealth.

Senator LONG:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice -

If the Government will instruct the Royal Commission on Naval and Defence Administration now inquiring into matters relating to the purchase of the Shaw wireless works at Randwick, New South Wales, to extend their investigation so as to include all the circumstances governing the settlement of the lawsuit between the Commonwealth Government and Marconi Wireless Company in respect to alleged patent infringement in 1914?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The matter referred to in the concluding portion of the honorable member’s question was dealt with in the Postmaster-General’s Department, and therefore would not properly come within the scope of the investigations of the Royal Commission on, Navy and Defence administration. It was completed about eighteen months before the purchase of the Shaw wireless works.

page 7681

QUESTION

REGULATION OF IMPORTS

Senator GRANT:

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

Is it a fact that the Government have taken any action to regulate the importation of certain classes of goods; and, if so, why?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

-Owing to the shortage of shipping and necessity for conserving national resources, the importation of certain classes of goods has been regulated.

page 7681

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Fruit and Vegetable Fund for Fighters’ Families

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice- -

Is the Minister aware whether the New South Wales State Repatriation Committee has refused to allow the “ Fruit and Vegetable Fund for Fighters’ Families “ permission to raise funds from the public, and will only allow them to appeal for gifts in kind?
Will the Minister consider the advisability of allowing the promoters of this fund to appeal to the public for monetary assistance, with a view to their continuing to supply soldiers’ families with the comforts of fruit and vegetables, as has been done for some considerable tiime past?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The following replies have been supplied by the Minister for Repatriation: -

The honorable member presumably refers to the State Board, of whose action the Minister is aware.
The matter is one at the discretion of the State Board, with right of appeal to the Commission. This right was exercised, and the Commission upheld the Board’s decision.

page 7682

EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– I lay on the table a statement of the exports of Australian goods to Ja,pan, asked for on the 1st instant by Senator Keating.

page 7682

ELECTORAL BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I move -

That so much of tho Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its remaining stages without delay.

The Government propose that if this motion is assented to, the first reading, which is a purely formal stage, shall be taken to-night. and that then the Minister shall make his speech in moving the second reading, after which the debate shall be adjourned until to-morrow. There is justification for this course in the fact that the Bill contains no principles that are new to the community. All its principles are well understood, and many of them are in operation in various States of the Commonwealth. Honorable senators are, in fact, thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the Bill, and the debate on the second reading may therefore very well proceed to-morrow.

Senator GARDINER (New South

– On the election figures it is clear that the result of the election under a system of preferential voting would have been the return of either the Labour candidate or the Country party’s candidate, who came second at the poll. But assume that a minority of the electors is represented, and although there have been minorities represented in every Parliament since Federation, the Government now propose to suspend the Standing Orders in order to avoid a repetition of such happenings, and in the hope of preventing the tide of victory turning against them at the Corangamite by-election.

– I am afraid that the benefits will be rushed upon the people by the suspension of standing orders and by foul means.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s principle is, “Do not inflict an injury, but if there is one in existence let it remain.”

Senator GARDINER:

– That which the honorable senator claims is being done as a benefit may conceivably be used for a dastardly purpose.

We are asked to suspend the Standing Orders to hasten the passage of a Bill which we have not yet seen. If this were a measure which we could grasp by merely listening to the Minister’s” speech it would be a different matter. If it were some such Bill as comes before Parliament frequently - for instance, having to do with the payment of civil servants, and in regard to which it might be claimed that any delay in its passage would cause serious inconvenience - honorable senators generally would not object to the suspension of the Standing Orders. When we are faced with a measure, however, which strikes at the taproot of all our electoral principles, we should at least demand that we be given every opportunity for its study, consideration, and debate. Some honorable senators may insist that this is a good Bill, and to that I can only reply that we should be given time to examine it. If honorable senators on this side were given that time which they have a right to ask, it would pass, no doubt, without undue debate or criticism. Standing Orders are provided for the protection of minorities in just such circumstances as these. Parliament has devised a means by which minorities may be protected from the actions of strong and unscrupulous Governments. What is the urgency of this Bill? The Government claim that its urgency is that under the old system they lost a byelection.

Senator PRATTEN:

– We have had no explanation from the Government, as yet.

Senator GARDINER:

– The reason why the rights of the minority in this Chamber are to be taken away is that the Government lost the Swan by-election under a principle which has been in existence for the past seventeen years, and has given reasonable satisfaction to the people throughout. Personally, I take no exception to the system under which we have been working. But for that system I should not have been here; and I must say that it has worked well for the people of Australia, owing to the fact that I am here, and that all of us are here. But, with the awful example of the past few days before us, will not honorable senators take warning, and leave well alone’* We learn that the “All-Highest,” who would have been in a secure position still had he been wise enough to let wellenough alone, is now flying from his country. He was not satisfied ; he wanted to alter things, and he used a brutal majority to bring about his purposes until he came up against a liberty-loving people; wherefore he is now a fugitive without a crown. The Government should take warning by the example of that distinguished deserter from his own country, and should leave well-enough alone.

– I am not permitted to refer directly to the House of Representatives, but I may say that the honorable gentleman who has been referred to, when this same measure was before another pla.ae, .desired to move an amendment. He afterwards asked me, in a very sorrowful voice, whether, if the rights of the representatives of the people were not treated in the same way in the Senate as they had been elsewhere, I would move his amendment for him; and I promised that I would do so. The Government, in their haste to pass this Bill, would not even give their own supporters an opportunity of moving amendments. Under some new standing order which was introduced, the debate had to -close at a given signal. All criticism, all consideration, was guillotined The rights of the representatives of the people in another place were taken from them. Pull, free, and fair discussion of how the people should choose their representatives, not only in the coming byelection, but in the Federal elections which are to follow, was not permitted.

During the war period extending over the last four years domestic politics have been set aside. The question of war was the only one with regard to which the people could think or act. The elections that have taken place since the outbreak of war have been to decide, not the representation of the people so as to insure the passing of legislation which they desired, but who should conduct and manage the business of war. Instead of the Government displaying such frantic anxiety to rush this Bill through in order that it may apply to an approaching by-election, it would do better to consult its dignity and show its regard for the trust which the people have reposed in it. If they would pass a Bill providing that on 1st July next there should be a general election for the House of Representatives and for the Senate in respect of senators who will shortly have to retire they would do well. By July next war conditions will have ended, let us hope, and our soldiers will have returned-

Senator Pratten:

– Let us hope.

Senator GARDINER:

– We ho.pe so. We trust also that by that time they will have been repatriated in such a way that they will not have grievances such as to cause on their part a desire to be directly represented by returned soldiers.

Senator Bakhap:

– On what issue does the honorable senator suggest we should go to the country?

Senator GARDINER:

The Government may suspend the Standing Orders, but they will not prevent me from reading the Bill.

Honorable senators opposite may think they will make haste hurriedly by rushing this measure through, but fortunately my privileges afford me the opportunity to read the Bill word for word, and I shall read it, because I intend to let it be known what we are asked to suspend the Standing Orders for. I am going to make a request which possibly was never made in the Senate before. Owing to increasing years and growing infirmity, I ask you, sir, to permit me to continue my speech sitting down. I make that request earnestly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon) . - Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the honorable senator should continue his speech sitting down?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have made my request because I feel that if it were not granted I should be too long standing on my feet while reading the Bill in my present condition of health. Although one- may appear robust in appearance one may feel a little shaky on occasions, and that is how I feel. I find that this measure is -

page 7689

A BILL

for

page 7689

AN ACT

To Consolidate and Amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

Part I. - Preliminary

This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
The several Parts and sections of this Act shall commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation. 3. - (1) The several Parts and sections of the following Acts, namely: - the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1905, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1906, the Disputed Elections and Qualifications Act 1907, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1909, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1911, the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, and the Electoral Divisions Act 1903, are repealed as from such dates as are respectively . fixed by Proclamation.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Bill proceeds -

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

Senator Pratten:

– I rise to a point of order. Is Senator Gardiner in order in reading the Bill word by word, line by line, and clause by clause? I rise to ask that question on a point of order, and also to appeal to the Government, if possible, to end this farce.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order ! The honorable senator may raise a point of order, but he cannot discuss the matter.

Senator Gardiner:

– On the point of order, I should like to say that I am reading the Bill because we are asked to suspend so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent it passing through all its stages at one sitting, if need be, or without delay. As the Bill was officially before the Senate only about five minutes before the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders was moved, I think I am- perfectly in order in reading the measure for honorable senators, that they may know exactly what they are being asked to suspend the. Standing Orders to do. I hope that there is no standing order that will prevent me from making clear what the Senate is being asked to do.

Senator Grant:

– On the point of order, it appears to me that Senator Gardiner is hurriedly running through this measure without giving it the consideration it deserves. He has told us that it proposes to repeal the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1902, and I think that he ought to quote the whole of that measure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! On the point of order raised by Senator Pratten, I rule that Senator Gardiner is in order in reading the Bill.

Senator Pratten:

– “Would I be in order in appealing to the Government to consider the position that has arisen?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- No.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Bill proceeds -

Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act of 1917.
1. This Act is divided into Parts as follows : -

Parts

Part I. - Preliminary

Part II. - Administration.

Part III. - Electoral Divisions.

Part IV. - Subdivisions and Polling Places.

Part V.- Electoral Rolls

Part VI. - Qualifications and Disqualifications for Enrolment and for Voting.

Part VII.- Enrolment.

Part VIII.- Objections.

Part IX. - Appeals.

Part X. - Writs for Elections

Part XI. - The. Nominations.

Part XII.- Voting by Post.

Part XIII.- The Polling.

Part XIV.- The Scrutiny.’

Part XV.- The Return of the Writs.

Part XVI. - Limitation of Electoral Expenses.

Part XVII.- Electoral Offences.

Part XVIII.- Court of Disputed Returns. Division 1. - Disputed Elections and Returns.

Division 2. - Qualifications and Vacancies

Part XIX. - Miscellaneous. Interpretation.

In this Act unless the contrary intention appears - “Candidate” in Parts II., XVI., and XVII. includes any person who within three months before the day of election announces himself as a candidate for election as a Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives:’ “ Controller-General of Prisons “ means the Controller-General or other principal officer of a State having control of the prisons and gaols of the State: “ Division “ means an Electoral Division for the election of . a member of the House of Representatives: “ Elector “ moans any person whose name appears on a Boll as an elector: “ Justice of the Peace “ means a Justice of the Peace of the Commonwealth, or part of the Commonwealth, or of a State, or part of a State:

Senator GARDINER:

– Clause 5 continues - “Officer” includes the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth, and any Commonwealth Electoral Officer for a State, Divisional Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Registrar, Presiding Officer, Substitute Presiding Officer, Assistant Presiding Officer, Poll Clerk, and Doorkeeper: “ Registrar “ means an Electoral Registrar under this Act and includes a Divisional Returning Officer acting as Registrar : “ Registrar-General “ means the RegistrarGeneral or other Principal Officer of a State who is charged with the duty of registering deaths occurring and marriages celebrated in the State: “ Returning Officer “ includes Divisional Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer: “ Roll “ means an Electoral Roll under this Act: “ Subdivision ‘” means a subdivision of a Division.

Part II. - Administration.

Chief Electoral Officer

There shall be a Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth who shall have such powers and functions as are conferred upon him by this Act or the Regulations.

Commonwealth Electoral Officers for the States.

There shall be a Commonwealth Electoral Officer for each State who shall subject to the directions of the Chief Electoral Officer be the principal electoral officer in the State. Divisional Returning Officers.
There shall be a DivisionalReturning Officer for each Division, who shall be charged with the duty of giving effect to this Act within or for his Division subject to the directions of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State.

Assistant Returning Officers. 9. (1) Assistant Returning Officers may be appointed to exercise within or for any portion of a Division, subject to the control of the Divisional Returning Officer, all the power? of the Divisional Returning Officer except those relating to postal voting, but no Assistant Returning Officer shall bo appointed in or for any portion of a Division for which less than one hundred electors are enrolled.

Where the services of an Assistant Returning Officer arc required for the purpose of an election only, the appointment may be made by the Chief Electoral Officer and in such case shall terminate upon the completion of the election.

Electoral Registrars

The Minister may appoint Electoral Registrars to keep the Rolls for specified Subdivisions, who shall be subject to the directions of the Divisional Returning Officer. The Divisional Returning Officer shall act as Registrar for any Subdivision of his. Division for which no Registrar has been appointed, and may by virtue of his office act as Registrar for any Subdivision of his Division during the absence from duty of the Registrar for the Subdivision.

Appointment in cases of emergency. 11. (1) In the event of any vacancy occurring in the office of Divisional Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer or Registrar, or in the absence from duty of any such officer, the Chief Electoral Officer may appoint some person to perform the duties of the office during the period of the vacancy or absence.

Any such appointment shall bo temporary only, and shall not confer on the appointee any right or claim to be permanently appointed to the position.

Date from which appointments are . to take effect.

A person appointed to be a Divisional Returning Officer, an Assistant Returning Officer, or a Registrar, shall be deemed to have been appointed as from the date specified in his appointment, or, if no such date is specified, as from the date of his appointment. Candidates not to be officers.
No candidate shall be appointed an officer, and if any officer becomes a candidate he shall thereby vacate his office.

Keeping of forms.

All Divisional Returning Officers and Registrars shall keep forms of claim for enrolment and transfer and such other forms as are prescribed, and shall without fee supply them to the public and assist the public in their proper use.

Part III. - Electoral Divisions.

Divisions

Each State shall be distributed into Electoral Divisions equal in number to the number of Members of the Bouse of Representatives to be chosen for the State, and one Member of the House of Representatives shall be chosen for each Division.

Distribution Commissioners

( 1 ) For the purpose of the distribution of a State into Divisions in accordance with this Act the Governor-General may appoint three Distribution Commissioners, of whom one shall be the Chief Electoral Officer or an officer having similar qualifications, and, if his services are obtainable, one shall be the Surveyor-General of the State or an officer having similar qualifications.
1. The Governor-General may appoint one of the Distribution Commissioners to be Chairman.
2. The Distribution Commissioners shall hold office during the pleasure of the GovernorGeneral.

Proceedings at meetings. .

At all meetings of the Distribution Commissioners the Chairman, if present, shall preside, and in his absence the Distribution Commissioners present shall appoint one of their number to preside, and at all such meetings two Commissioners shall be a quorum and shall have full power to act, and in the event of an equality of votes the Chairman or presiding Commissioner shall have a casting vote in addition to his original vote.

Quota

For the purposes of this Act the Chief Electoral Officer shall, whenever necessary, ascertain a quota for each State as follows: -

The whole number of electors in each State, as nearly as can be ascertained, shall be divided by the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be chosen for the State.

Matters to be considered in distribution of a State.

In making any proposed distribution of a State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall give due consideration to -
1. Community or diversity of interest,
2. Means of communication.
3. Physical features,
4. Existing boundaries of Divisions and Subdivisions,
5. State Electoral boundaries; and subject thereto the quota of electors shall be the basis for the distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners may adopt a margin of allowance, to be used whenever necessary, but in no case shall the quota be departed from to a greater extent than one-fifth more or onefifth less.

Notice of proposed distribution.

Before reporting on the distribution of any State into Divisions the Distribution Commissioners shall cause a map with a description of the boundaries of each proposed Division to be exhibited at post-offices in the proposed Division, and shall invite public attention thereto by advertisement in the Gazette Objections.
Objections or suggestions in writing may be lodged with the Distribution Commissioners not later than thirty days after the first advertisement in the Gazette of the proposed distribution, and the Distribution Commissioners shall consider all objections and suggestions so lodged before making their report. Report of Distribution Commissioners.
The Distribution Commissioners shall forthwith, after the expiration of the thirty days above mentioned, forward to the Minister their report upon the distribution of the State into Divisions, and the. number of electors residing in each proposed Division, as nearly as can be ascertained, together with a map signed by them showing the boundaries of each proposed Division.

Report to be laid before Parliament.

The report and map shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within seven days after its receipt if the Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within seven days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

Proclamation of Divisions. 24. (1) If both Houses of the Parliament pass a resolution approving of . any proposed distribution the Governor-General may by proclamation declare the names and boundaries of the Divisions, and such Divisions shall until altered be the Electoral Divisions for the State in which they are situated:

Providedthat, until the next ensuing dissolution or ‘expiration of the House of Repretatives. the redistribution shall not affect the election of a new member to fill a vacancy happening in the House of Representatives; but for the purposes of any such election the Electoral Divisions as theretofore existing, and the Rolls in respect of those Divisions, shall continue to have full force and effect, notwithstanding that new Rolls for the new Divisions have been prepared.

If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution disapproving of any proposed distribution, or negatives a motion’ for the approval of any proposed distribution, the Minister may direct the Distribution Commissioners to propose a fresh distribution of the State into Divisions.
The Distribution Commissioners shall thereupon reconsider the matter, and forthwith propose a fresh distribution, but for that’ purpose it shall not be necessary to cause the action provided by section twenty of this Act to be taken.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - Standing order No. 200 applies to the consideration of a Bill in Committee. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent the honorable senator reading the Bill clause by clause.

Senator GARDINER:

–

Re-distribution. 25. (1) A re-distribution of any State into Divisions shall be made in the manner hereinbefore provided whenever directed by the Governor-General by proclamation.

Such proclamation may be made -

whenever an alteration is made in the number of Members of the House of Representatives to be elected for the State ; and

whenever in one-fourth of the Divisions of the State the number of the electors differs from a quota ascer- tained in the manner provided in this Part to a greater extent than one-fifth more or one-fifth less; and

at such other times as the GovernorGeneral thinks fit.

Part IV. - Subdivisions and Polling Places.

Subdivisions.

Each Division shall be divided into Subdivisions and the boundaries of each Subdivision shall be as specified by proclamation. Polling Places. 27. (1) The Minister may. by notice in the Gazette -

appoint a chief polling place for each Division ;

appoint such other polling places for each Division as he thinks necessary;

declare polling places to be the polling places for any specified Subdivision; and

abolish any polling place.

No polling place shall be abolished after the issue of the writ and before the time appointed for its return.

Change of Electors from one Roll to another.

When a Division is divided into Subdivisions, or the boundaries of a Division or Subdivision are altered, or a new Subdivision is proclaimed, such changes as are thereby rendered necessary for the transfer of the names of electors from one Roll to another Roll shall be made in the prescribed manner.

Part V. - Electoral Rolls.

Electoral Rolls.

( 1 ) There shall be a Roll of the electors for each State.

Until new Rolls are prepared, the Rolls in existence at the commencement of this Act shall, as altered from time to time, be the Rolls of electors.

Subdivision Rolls, Division Rolls, and State Rolls. 30. (1) There shall be a Roll for each Division.

There shall be a separate Roll for each Subdivision.

All the Subdivision Rolls for a Division shall together form the Boll for the Division.

All the Division Rolls for a State shall together form the Roll for the State.

Form of Rolls.

The Rolls may be in the prescribed form, and shall set out the surname, Christian names, place of living, occupation (or other prescribed particulars) and sex of each elector, and may contain such further particulars as are prescribed.

Arrangement with States.

( 1 ) The Governor-General may arrange with the Governor of a State for the preparation, alteration, and revision of the Rolls, in any manner consistent with the provisions of this Act, jointly by the Commonwealth and the State, to the intent that the Rolls may be used as Electoral Rolls for State elections as well as for Commonwealth elections.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I think we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

When any such arrangement has been made, the Rolls may contain, for the purposes of such State elections -
1. the names and descriptions of persons who are not entitled to be enrolled thereon as electors of the Commonwealth provided that it is clearly indicated in the prescribed manner that those persons arc not enrolled thereon as Commonwealth electors;
2. distinguishing marks against the names of persons enrolled as Commonwealth electors, to show that those persons are or are not also enrolled as State electors; and
3. other particulars in addition to the prescribed particulars; and for the purposes of this Act the names, descriptions, marks, and particulars so contained shall not be deemed part of the Roll.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I call attention to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

New Rolls. 33. (1) New Rolls for any Subdivisions, Divisions, or States shall be prepared whenever directed by proclamation.

The Rolls shall be . prepared under a systern of compulsory enrolment.

The proclamation may specify the manner in which the Rolls shall be prepared; and may require every person entitled to enrolment on any new Roll to sign and send to the proper officer in accordance with the regulations a form of claim for enrolment and otherwise to comply with the regulations relating to compulsory enrolment:

Provided that -where an elector is enrolled for the Subdivision in which he lives, in pursuance of a claim signed by him, he shall not be required to sign and send in any further claim for enrolment in connexion with the preparation of a new Roll.

Additions, &c, to new Rolls.

Upon the receipt by the Registrar of a new Roll for a Subdivision, the Registrar shall -

make additions, alterations, and corrections therein; and

remove names therefrom, pursuant to claims or notifications received by him between the date of the proclamation directing the preparation of new Rolls and the date of the notification that the Rolls have been prepared, where the additions, alterations or corrections have not already been made in, or the removals have not been made from, the Rolls.

Objections and notices to have effect in relation to new Rolls.

Where objections ‘have been lodged or notices of objection have been issued and action in respect of those objections or notices has not been completed prior to the notification of the preparation of now Rolls, the objections or notices shall have effect in relation to the new Rolls as if such Rolls had been in existence at the time of the lodging of the objections or the issuing of the notices.

Printing ofRolls. 30. (1) Rolls shall be printed whenever the Minister so directs.

Supplemental Rolls, setting out additions since the latest print of the Rolls shall be prepared, and wherever practicable printed, immediately previous to a Senate Election or a General Election for the House of Representatives, and at such other times as the Minister directs.

Inspection

( 1 ) Copies of the latest print of the Division Roll and of all supplemental prints shall be open for public inspection at the office of the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division without fee, and shallbe obtainable thereat and at such post offices in the Division as the Divisional Returning Officer appoints, on payment of the price prescribed.
1. Every Roll kept by a Registrar shall be open for public inspection without fee at the office of the Registrar at all convenient times during his ordinary ‘officehours.

Officers and others to furnish information.

All officers in the service of the Commonwealth, all police, statistical, and electoral officers in the service of any State, officers in the service of any local governing body, and all occupiers of habitations shall upon application furnish to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State or to any officer acting under his direction all such information as he requires in connexion with the preparation, maintenance or revision of the Rolls.

Part VI. - Qualifications and Disqualifications for Enrolment and forvoting.

Persons entitled to enrolment and to vote. 39. (1) Subject to the disqualification setout in this Part, all persons not under twentyone years of age whether male or female married or unmarried - (a.) who have lived in Australia for six months continuously, and

who are natural-born or naturalized subjects of the King,
every member of the forces, according to the definition of such in the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act 1917. shall be entitled to enrolment subject to the provisions of Part VII. of this Act.
1. All persons whose names are on the roll for any Electoral Division shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to vote at elections of Members of the Senate for the State of which the Division forms part and at elections of

Members of the House of Representatives for the Division, but no person shall be entitled to vote more than once at any Senate election or any House of Representatives election, or at more than one election for the Senate or for the House of Representatives held on the same day.

No person who is of unsound mind, and no person attainted of treason, or who has been convicted and is under sentence for any offence punishable under the law of any part of the King’s dominions ‘by imprisonment for one year or longer, shall be entitled to have his name placed on. or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election orHouse of Representatives election.
No aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the Islands of the Pacific (except New Zealand) , ‘ shall be entitled to have his name placed on or retained on any roll or to vote at any Senate election or House of Representatives election unless so entitled under section forty-one of the Constitution.*

See Section 41 of the Constitution: -

Right of electors of States.

‘No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall while the right continues be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Part VII. - Enrolment.

Addition of names to Rolls. 40. (1) Names may be added to Rolls pursuant to claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment.

A claim may be in the prescribed form, and shall be signed by the claimant with, his personal signature, and attested by a prescribed person who shall sign his name as witness in his own handwriting.

Claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment. 41. (1) Any person qualified for enrolment, who lives in a Subdivision, and has so lived for a period of one month last past, shall be entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for that Subdivision.

Any elector whoso name is on the Roll for any Subdivision and who lives in any other Subdivision and has so lived for a period of - one month last past, shall be entitled to have his name transferred to the Roll for the Subdivision in which he lives.
No person is entitled to have his name placed on more than one Roll or upon any Roll other than the Roll for the Subdivision in which he lives.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any Senator may, if he so desires, have his name placed upon and retained upon the Roll for any Subdivision of any Division of the State which he represents instead of upon the Roll for the Subdivision in which he lives, and any Member of the House of Representatives, may, if he so desires, have his name placed upon and retained upon the Roll for any Subdivision of the Division which he represents instead of upon the Roll for the Subdivision in which he lives.
The validity of any enrolment shall not in any case be questioned on the ground that the person enrolled has not in fact lived in the Subdivision for a period of one month. Compulsory enrolment and transfer. 42. (1) Every person who is entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll, shall forthwith fill in and sign, in accordance with the directions printed thereon, a claim in the prescribed form, and send or deliver the claim to the Registrar for the Subdivision.
Every person who is entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for any Subdivision whether by way of enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of twenty-one days from the date upon which he became so entitled, or at any subsequent date while he continues to be so entitled, shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that his non-enrolment is not in consequence of his failure to send or deliver to the Registrar for the Subdivision for which he is entitled to be enrolled, a claim in the prescribed form, duly filled in and signed in accordance with the directions printed thereon.

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

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

Penalty: For a first offence, Ten shillings; and for every subsequent offence, Two pounds. Registration of claim. 43. (1) Upon receipt of a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment, the Registrar shall-

note on the claim the date of its receipt by him; and
if the claim is in order and he is satisfied that the claimant is entitled to be enrolled, forthwith -
1. enter on the Subdivision Roll the name of the claimant and the particulars relating to him; and
2. notify the claimant in the prescribed form that he has been enrolled; and
3. in the case of a transfer of enrolment give notice of the transfer to the Registrar keeping the Subdivision Roll from which the elector’s name has been transferred.
1. The Registrar keeping the Subdivision Roll from which an elector’s name has been transferred shall, upon the receipt of notice of the transfer in the prescribed form, removethe elector’s name from the Roll kept by him.

Senator GARDINER:

–

Reference of claims to Divisional Returning Officer. 44. (1) The Registrar, on receipt of a claim,, shall, if he is not satisfied that the claimant is entitled to be enrolled in pursuance of the claim, forthwith -

refer the claim, with such observations as he thinks proper, to the Divisional Returning Officer for his decision, and

send to the claimant a notification in the prescribed form that the claim has been so referred.

After the Divisional Returning Officer has made such inquiry as may be necessary to enable him to decide the claim, he shall forthwith return the claim to the Registrar, and notify the Registrar of his decision, and, if he decides to reject the claim, the reason for such decision.

If the Divisional Returning Officer decides that the claimant is entitled to enrolment pursuant to the claim, the Registrar shall forthwith enroll the claimant, and send to him a notification in the prescribed form that he has been so enrolled.

If the Divisional Returning Officer decides that the claimant is not entitled to enrolment pursuant to the claim, the Registrar shall forthwith send to the claimant a notification in the prescribed form that his claim has been rejected, specify the reason for the rejection, and advise the claimant that he is entitled, at any time within one calendar month after the receipt of the notification, to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order directing that his name be added to the Roll.

Time for altering Rolls.

Notwithstanding anything contained in either of the last two preceding sections -

claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment which are received by the Registrar after six o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ for an election shall not be registered until after the close of the polling at the election; and

except by direction of the Divisional Returning Officer no name shall be removed from a Roll pursuant to a notification of transfer of enrolment received by the Registrar after six o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ for an election and before the close of the polling at the election.

Penalty on officer neglecting to enrol claimants.

Any officer who receives a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment and who without just excuse fails to do everything necessary on his part to be done to secure the enrolment of the claimant in pursuance of the claim shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Ten pounds.

Alteration of Rolls. 47. (1) In addition to other powers of alteration conferred by this Act, a Registrar may alter any Roll kept by him by - (a.) correcting any mistake or omission in the particulars of the enrolment of an elector ;

altering, on the written application of an elector, the original name, address, or occupation of the elector on the same Subdivision Roll;

removing the name of any deceased elector;

striking out the superfluous entry where the name of the same elector appears more than once on the same Subdivision Roll;

reinstating any name removed by mistake as the name of a deceased elector;

reinstating, by direction of the Divisional Returning Officer any name removed as the result of an objection : Provided that the Divisional Returning Officer shall not direct the reinstatement of any such name unless he is satisfied that the objection was based on a mistake as to fact and that the person objected to still retains and has continuously retained his right to the enrolment in respect of which the objection was made;

reinstating by direction of the Divisional Returning Officer any other name removed by mistake; and (h) removing a name from the Roll by direction of the Divisional Returning Officer upon the certificate of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer:

Provided that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall not issue such a certificate unless he is satisfied that the elector has ceased to be qualified for enrolment on that Roll and has secured enrolment on another Roll:

Provided further that where a Registrar removes any such name he shall send by post to the elector whose name is so removed notice of the fact.

Where the name of an elector has, pursuant to a claim, been incorrectly placed on the Roll for a Subdivision other than the Subdivision in which he was living at the date of the claim, and the elector was entitled on that date to have his name placed on the Roll for the Subdivision in which he was living, the

Divisional Returning Officer may, where the two Subdivisions are in the same Division -

direct the Registrar keeping the Roll on which the elector is entitled to be enrolled to place the name on that Roll and to notify the elector of the change of enrolment; and

direct the Registrar keeping the Roll on which the elector is not entitled to be enrolled to remove the name from that Roll.

No alteration pursuant to this section shall without the authority of the Divisional Returning Officer be made at any time after six o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ for an election and before the close of the polling at the election.

Alterations to be initialed.

Every alteration of a Roll shall be made in such a manner that the original entry shall not be obliterated, and the reason for each alteration and the date thereof shall be set against the alteration, together with the initials of the Registrar.

Lists of deaths and marriage to be forwarded.

The Registrar-General shall as soon as practicable after the beginning of each month or at such other times as are arranged with ‘ the Chief Electoral Officer -

forward to each Divisional Returning Officer in the State (either direct or through the Commonwealth Electoral Officer as may be arranged) a list of the names, addresses, occupations, ages, and sexes and dates of death of all persons of the age of twentyone years or upwards whose deaths have been registered during the preceding month in respect of the Division for which the Divisional Returning Officer has been appointed;

Sitting suspended from 12 o’clock (midnight) to 12.45 a.m. (Thursday).

Senator GARDINER:

– Clause 49 continues -

forward to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer particulars of all marriages of women of the age of twenty-one years or upwards which have been registered in the State during the preceding month.

Officer to act on receipt of information.

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer, or the Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires, shall, upon receipt of information pursuant to the last two preceding sections, take action under this Act to effect such alterations of the Rolls as are necessary.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. I base my point of order on several of our Standing Orders. In the first place, I direct attention to standing order 406, which provides that no honorable senator shall read his speech. I was present in the chamber for at least halfanhour before the suspension of the sitting, and have been present since its resumption, and during the whole of that time the honorable senator continued to read the Bill. We know that quotations are allowable, but they should have some relevancy. The motion before the Senate is for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Senator Gardiner:

– For what purpose?

Senator Pearce:

– To enable the Bill to be passed through all its remaining stages without delay. I contend that the honorable senator in debating the motion by reading the whole of the Bill is, in fact, reading his speech. No one can contend that his quotation has any relevancy to the motion. If that could be contended, the honorable senator might proceed to read every electoral Bill on earth.

Senator Gardiner:

– I intend to.

Senator Pearce:

– That strengthens my point that the honorable senator is reading the Bill, not as a quotation in favour or against the motion, but in abuse of the right of quotation in a way never intended to be permitted by the Standing Orders.

I direct attention also to standing order 419, which provides that -

No senator shall digress from the subjectmatter of any question under discussion: nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the notice-paper.

I do not know that this Bill appears on the notice-paper; but since the receipt of the message from the House of Representatives it has come within the purview of the Senate, and its consideration has become a part of the business of the Senate. Senator Gardiner is entitled to give reasons for or against the suspension of the Standing Orders, but it would be straining his right to do so to suggest that in reading the Electoral Bill the honorable senator is giving such reasons.

I direct attention also to standing order 421, which provides -

The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate or the Committee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct a senator to discontinue his speech.

And, in order that the senator may have the protection of the Senate, and that the standing order may not be interpreted to the detriment of fair debate, there is added the following proviso : -

Provided that such senator shall have the right to require that the question whether he be further heard be put, and thereupon such question shall be put without debate.

I submit with all due deference that the Standing Orders to which I have referred should be read together, because the practice now being adopted by Senator Gardiner is unparalleled in my experience of parliamentary procedure, which goes back to the time of the commencement of this Parliament. I have never previously known of an attempt being made to read the whole of a Bill as debate. I say that the Standing Orders to’ which I have referred should be read together, because they all deal with the order of debate.

I come now to the question of infringement of order and privilege, and direct attention to standing order 438, which provides that -

If any senator -

persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the Senate; he may be reported as having committed an offence. I contend that Senator Gardiner has clearly shown that he is reading the Bill, not for the purpose of elucidating any point in connexion with the motion before the Senate, but for the deliberate purpose of obstructing the business of the Senate. I assume that in interpreting the Standing Orders, you, sir, are entitled to take into consideration the attitude and assurances of honorable senators, and Senator Gardiner has assured the Senate, through you, that he proposes to read the whole of the Electoral Acts of the world. I contend that that constitutes a threat of persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Senate. Obviously the course the honorable senator is following is not intended in any way to facilitate the business of the Senate, or to assist in the discussion of the motion before the Chair. The Standing Orders I have quoted seem to me to have a direct bearing upon the practice adopted by Senator Gardiner, and in view of the fact that this is the first time such a practice has been attempted in the Senate, I ask for your ruling as to whether the honorable senator is in order in proceeding to read without interspersing any comments thereon, the whole of the clauses of a Bill which honorable senators will shortly have an opportunity of considering in Committee.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) bases his claim that the practice adopted by Senator Gardiner is a breach of the Standing Orders on several different points. He says that the procedure is new, and that in eighteen years’ experience of this Parliament he has never seen it attempted before. The honorable senator may be learning something. The fact that the honorable senator has never known the practice to have been’ attempted before does not make it a breach of the Standing Orders. I admit that it is a very unusual method that is being indulged in by Senator Gardiner, but it arises from a most unusual procedure. In fourteen or fifteen years’ experience in this Chamber I cannot remember an instance of a Government considering it necessary to move the suspension of the Standing’ Orders after 10 o’clock at night in connexion with a Bill of the volume and importance of the Electoral Bill.

On the question of relevancy, I ask whether anything could be more relevant to the motion under discussion than the quotations which Senator Gardiner has been making from the Bill. We are asked to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the Bill to pass through all its stages without delay, and Senator Gardiner is entitled in every way that is not incon sistent with the Standing Orders to show why the Standing Orders should not be suspended. He is attempting to show that in the most relevant and effective way he could possibly adopt. The Bill is so important that the Standing Orders should not be suspended to hurry its passage until such time as every member of the Senate has made himself fully conversant with every clause in it, so that he may be able to follow the Minister in charge of it during his second-reading speech. The Minister for Defence must, in the circumstances, admit that his objection on the score of irrelevancy falls to the ground.

The Standing Orders were framed for the protection .of every member of the Senate, and the rights and privileges of honorable senators are being absolutely overridden by the adoption of such a procedure as we have been confronted with to-night, when, after 10 p.m., we find the Minister taking the unusual course of moving the suspension of the Standing Orders to try to rush through a Bill like this.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– .Order! The honorable senator is not entitled to say that any action taken under the Standing Orders is overriding the rights of the Senate. No Minister and no individual senator can override the rights of the Senate. The Senate can protect its own rights, and while I occupy my position, I shall not tolerate any attempt to override the rights of the Senate. I cannot permit the honorable senator to make such a. statement.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I - I stand corrected, and withdraw the statement; but I felt that the Minister had taken that course. I know that you, sir, have only one thought in your mind, as the occupant of the highest position which is in the gift of the Senate, and that is to conserve to the utmost the rights and privileges of every member of the Senate. I am sure that you will give this matter very full consideration before deciding that Senator Gardiner is out of order in reading the clauses of the Bill. How could the honorable senator otherwise stress his objection to the suspension of the Standing

Orders? He desires to show that the procedure followed by the Government should not have been adopted, and there are 220 good reasons contained in the clauses of the Bill why the Standing Orders should not be suspended in the way proposed. I hope that you will decide that it would be an improper curtailment of the rights of Senator Gardiner if. he were not permitted to continue reading the clauses of the Bill. His quotations have been very, instructive to honorable senators who have not had an opportunity so far of reading the Bill. They are being given an opportunity of listening carefully to its provisions in the measured tones adopted by the honorable senator. I hope that you will rule that Senator Gardiner is entirely in order in the course he has adopted. I agree that he would probably not be in order in reading the clauses- of any other Electoral Bill but that with which the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders deals.

Senator Gardiner:

– There are one or two aspects of the point of order to which . I should like to direct attention. One is that the point has already been submitted to the Chair, -and it was ruled by the Deputy President in your absence from the chamber, that I was in order in reading the clauses of the Bill. I am not suggesting that if the Deputy President was wrong you should buttress his ruling by another wrong ruling, but it will be admitted that it is difficult to conduct a debate when one is subjected twice in the course of his speech to an interruption by the raising of the same point of order.

– I shall certainly connect my remarks as desired. I have no intention of unnecessarily prolonging the debate. I might easily have been accused of this if I read a clause of the Bill ,and then commented upon it; but I wish to expedite the business of the Senate. I merely want honorable senators to know what Bill it is in respect of which they have been asked to suspend the iS banding Orders. Therefore I have not been making comments on clauses that are .quite clear. I think honorable senators have appreciated this fact. My one desire is that, before honorable senators .give their Vote, they may know what it is they have been asked to vote for. Clause 51 reads -

The Commonwealth Electoral Officer or the Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires, shall, upon receipt of information pursuant -to the last two preceding sections, take action under this Act to effect such alterations of the Rolls as are necessary.

You, sir, have asked me to connect my reading of the clause with my objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders: I think that honorable senators should be aware of the provisions of this Bill before they consent to the motion, and so enable the Bill to be carried through all its stages in the extraordinary manner proposed by the Minister.

I would be out of order, at this stage, in disclaiming at any length the imputations made by Senator de Largie and the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who have charged me with attempting to unduly delay the business of the Senate. Our Standing Orders provide for the manner in which the business is to be conducted, and you, sir, as the guardian of the Senate, need not even be appealed to to deal with any honorable senator who deliberately lays himself out to do this by any subterfuge. All my efforts are in the : direction of observing the Standing’ Orders.” My desire is to accelerate the business of the Senate, and to see that our Standing Orders, which are made for our guidance,, and, shall I say, the protection of minorities against the impatience of the Minister or a Ministerial follower, are not misused. It is the duty of any member of this Senate to take all reasonable and legitimate means provided by the Standing Orders to let the public know how business is being conducted here. At 10 o’clock last night this Bill was introduced, and I challenge any honorable senator to say that he was aware of its provisions. I have read the measure as it was introduced in the other House, because it was my duty to do so; but I am not aware whether or not the other House made any alterations in it.

Senator Reid:

– You will find all that out in Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– But when we reach that stage we may find that by the suspension of the Standing Orders we have been committed to principles that are repugnant to the Senate. When the Committee stage is reached I suppose that the honorable senator, with the same logic and reasoning, will tell me that we shall have time on the third reading or the report stage to make any objections we may have to the measure.

I have been reading the provisions of this Bill with the deliberate intention of informing honorable senators what it contains. Part VIII. deals with objections, and clauses 52 and 53 read as follows : -

PART VIII. - Objections.

Any name on a Roll may be objected to by objection in writing lodged with or made by the Divisional Returning Officer:

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

The objection may be in the prescribed form, and shall be signed by an elector enrolled on the same Subdivision Roll as the person objected to, or by the Divisional Returning Officer or Registrar, or other prescribed officer.

Clause 54 is as follows: -

It is the duty of the DivisionalReturning Officer and of each Registrar or other prescribed officer to lodge or make an objection in writing, setting forth the grounds of such objection, in respect of any name which he has reason to believe ought not to be retained on the Roll.

Clause 55 reads - 55. (1) When an objection is made by or lodged with a Divisional Returning Officer, the Divisional Returning Officer shall forthwith give notice of the objection to the person objected to.

The notice may be’ in the prescribed form, and may be served by’ being posted to the place of abode for the time being of the person objected to, if that place of abode is known to- the Divisional Returning Officer, or, if it, is not known to the Divisional Returning Officer, then to the place of living as appearing on the Roll.
Where the Divisional Returning Officer is satisfied that the ground of objection stated in any objection lodged by an officer is not a good ground of objection, he may dismiss the objection, in which case no notice of the objection need be given to the person objected to.
An objection on the ground that a person does not live in the Subdivision for which he is enrolled! shall be deemed not to be good unless it alleges that the person objected to does not live in the Subdivision,, and has not so lived for at least one month last past.

I call attention to the last phrase. If half-a-dozen different magistrates were asked to give a decision on it, the chances are that we would get four or five different interpretations. One might say it meant the last four weeks, another that it meant a calendar month. If I went into an electorate on the 20th July, and lived there until the 28th August, and then applied to enroll, the electoral officer might say, “You cannot be enrolled, because the month last past was July. You must wait until the end of August.” Under ordinary conditions that would be no hardship, but what if the writ was issued on the 29th July ? I have a strong objection to putting into a Bill phrases which are not the ordinary coin of the realm so far as language is concerned. We have seen too many quibbling strawsplitting appeals made because of legislation passed in this way. I have noticed this peculiar phrase several times while reading the Bill, but have discovered no definition of it. If there is none, the Minister should certainly bring one down, especially if he intends to persist with his motion to suspend the Standing Orders, instead of allowing us to deal deliberatively with the measure as men trying to do their duty by putting the electoral law beyond the possibility of litigious disputes.

The next clause is -

The person objected to may, orally or in writing, in the prescribed manner, answer the objection.

That clause shows me that I was wrong a little while back in saying that a person objected to would have to go into Court to prove his case. I made that mistake because I did not know what the Bill contained. That is an illustration of the danger of passing Acts of Parliament in panic fashion. The country has managed to struggle along under the old Act for seventeen years. That old Act has sent to this Parliament the honorable senators whom; I see taking such an intelligent interestin the debate, particularly Senators Reid, Fairbairn, Lynch, Bakhap, and Russell. When I see their present recumbent attitude, and know that they are determined to force this new law through by suspending the Standing Orders,- I ask if any one thinks the new law will send into this Chamber men more fitted for their legislative duties than tkey are? Do tbev think the system which they are going to alter has failed because* it sent them- here ? Do they think it will send a better type of men here?

I doubt it, because past experience shows that whenever a Reform Bill has passed through Parliament the result, in nine cases out of ten, has been tlie very opposite to that expected by the governing party which passed it.

After the few minutes which I have been speaking,- and the little longer time I have been reading, the Bill, I find honorable senators opposite tired aud anxious to suppress me by putting me to the physical strain of reading whilst standing on my feet, and by taking points of order. Contrast this impatient Senate, anxious to get the Bill through, with the Parliament that passed the Reform Bill of 1830, 1831, and 1832. Think of the tremendous struggles of that great Democracy from which our forefathers came ! Yet that Reform Bill nearly brought disaster to the people of Great Britain. I knew one venerable old man who, then a boy of fifteen, pinned the badge of reform in his coat, and swore that it should remain there until the rotten boroughs were wiped out of existence. Thousands of others pinned that badge to their coats also. Remember the tremendous convulsions which occurred at the birth of that young Democracy in those days. Up to that time the Government of Great Britain had been the Government of the powerholding classes. The voice not only of the masses, but of the great middle classes, had not been articulate until these resolute, brave-hearted men determined that Democracy should at least be heard in the Parliament of the country. In this Parliament we now have the spectacle of a Government so eager to rush their legislation through that they will not listen to the voice of reason, or harken to any appeal for time to deliberate on a measure of this magnitude. They want the measure, as settled in Caucus by the National party, passed without debate in either House. They want us bound, gagged, and tied, and will not permit us even to voice our opposition to any parts of the Bill that we consider objectionable. In the days of the Reform Bill of 1830, men were determined to fight for a better franchise. We know what they dared, and what they did, and we know the great benefits the nation derived from their action. There was a Russell in those days whose name will live in history. He was not sleeping on the cushioned benches when reform was in the air. He defied his class, and fought for the Democracy against the Aristocracy of Great Britain. He was not a. soft, smooth, ease-loving, cushionhaunting Russell, who, when an attempt is made to take from the .people and from Parliament those liberties to which a Democracy is entitled, snugly snores on cushioned seats while a Government, lost to all sense of responsibility to the people, a Government without any capacity to measure the work they are doing, endeavours in a high-handed manner to stifle the voice of Parliament by suspending the very Standing Orders which give us the right to speak here.

Senator Needham:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator’s speech deserves a quorum.

Senator Guthrie:

– He has driven all his own supporters out.

Senator Needham:

– I ask that the honorable senator be called on to withdraw those words.1 He said I have driven all .my supporters out.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - If the honorable senator made any remark which another honorable senator regards as offensive, I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Guthrie:

– I will alter it, and say, “ All his supporters but one.”

– The honorable senator did make it.

Senator Gardiner:

– If the honorable senator said that I had driven all my supporters out, I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Senator Guthrie:

– I withdraw it as regards Senator Gardiner.

Senator Needham:

– It is the custom of the Senate for a remark which is objected to to be withdrawn without qualification. So far as I am concerned, the honorable senator has not withdrawn without qualification.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator’s good sense will show him that he should withdraw any remark which another honorable senator regards as offensive.

Senator Guthrie:

– I made no offensive remark with reference to the honorable senator.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Will the honorable senator withdraw it?

Senator Guthrie:

– No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I again appeal to the honorable senator. I trust that he will not force me to carry the matter further.

Senator Guthrie:

– I cannot and will not withdraw what I did not say.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Senator Needham has taken exception to a remark by the honorable senator as offensive, and I ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Guthrie:

– With all deference to the Chair, I leave it to the Senate to say what my remark was. -It had no reference whatever to Senator Needham.

Senator Reid:

– Hear, hear!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- If the honorable senator gives me the assurance that his remark had no reference to Senator Needham, that ends the matter.

Senator Needham:

– That is an easy way out. If I had made the same statement I would not have been let off.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! There is a quorum present.

Senator GARDINER:

– Clauses 57 and 58 read -

The Divisional Returning Officer shall determine the objection forthwith on receipt of the answer of the person objected to, or if no answer is received within a period of twenty days after the posting of the notice, then after the expiration of that period, and if it appears that the person objected to is not entitled to be enrolled on the Roll in respect of which the objection has been made, the Divisional Returning Officer shall direct the Registrar to remove the name of such person from that Roll :

Provided that no name shall be removed from a Roll in pursuance of this section after the issue of the writ for an election and before the close of the polling at the election.

If any objection lodged by any person other than an officer is held by the Divisional Returning Officer to be frivolous, the person objected to shall be entitled to such reasonable allowance, not exceeding Five pounds, as the Divisional Returning Officer thinks fit to award.
In default of payment the sum awarded may be recovered by the person objected to in any civil court as a debt due by the objector.

Part IX. - Appeals. 58. (1) Any person -

who has sent or delivered to a registrar a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment, and who has not been enrolled pursuant thereto, or
whose name has been removed from a Roll by direction of the Divisional Returning Officer pursuant to an objection, may, at any time within one calendar month after the receipt of the notice of the rejection of the claim or of notice of the determination of the objection, as the case may be, in the prescribed manner make application to a court of summary jurisdiction, constituted by a Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate, or by two or more Justices of . the Peace authorized by the Governor-General to hear and determine electoral appeals, for an order directing that his name be enrolled or reinstated on the Roll, as the case requires.
1. Where an objection has been determined by the Divisional Returning Officer adversely to the person objecting, that person, if not an officer may in the prescribed manner apply to a court of summary jurisdiction, constituted as provided in the last preceding sub-section, for an order sustaining the objection.
2. Where the application has reference to the decision of the Divisional Returning Officer upon an objection, the applicant shall as prescribed serve the objector or the person objected to (as the case may be) with notice of the appllication, and the person so served may appear, or may in writing authorize any person to appear on his behalf, to resist the application.
3. The court may hear and determine any application under this section, and make such order as it thinks fit as to the costs of the application.
4. Any costs ordered by tlie court to be paid may be recovered in the same manner as the costs of any other proceeding before the court.
5. The clerk or other proper officer of the court shall send by post to the Divisional Returning Officer a certified copy of tlie order of the court, and it shall be the duty of the Divisional Returning Officer to direct the Registrar to make such entries (if any) upon the Roll as are necessary to give effect” to the order.
6. A Police, Stipendiary, or Special Magistrate, or two or more Justices of the Peace authorized by the Governor-General to hear and determine electoral appeals, though not Slitting as a court of summary jurisdiction, shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be, and shall have all the powers of, a court of summary jurisdiction; and the Minister may appoint a clerk to such Magistrate or. Justices and the clerk shall, for the purposes of this section, have all the powers and functions of the clerk or other proper officer of a court of summary jurisdiction.

Have honorable senators considered the enormous powers which it is proposed to place in the hands of an officer or a clerk? If we had ample time to consider this measure we might discover ,that there were just grounds for the proposed change from ordinary Courts of justice to special Courts to be created on the mere whim of a Minister. Ministers, after all, are only human, and in this case they display a remarkable anxiety to rush the measure through. Is it to be said that their object is to apply it to an approaching by-election for the House of Representatives? If the Standing Orders be suspended we shall not have the intervals that usually take place between the consideration of a Bill in its several stages. The motion for the first reading is formal; and not open to discussion. As a rule, between the first and second reading of a Bill we are given time to read it and to grasp its effect; but if we suspend the Standing Orders the several stages of this Bill may be dealt with in the one sitting. No serious objection is taken to the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable a Supply Bill or any measure of urgency to be passed through all its stages without delay. This measure, however, demands our deliberate judgment, and we should devote to it our best intellectual efforts, since it is a codification of all our electoral legislation. In these circumstances, surely it is reasonable to ask the Ministry not to use its majority to compel us to relinquish our right to claim that we are members of a deliberative assembly.

This measure transcends all others in importance. Our electoral law is the bedrock upon which our Democracy must rest. If the foundation be not well and truly laid we cannot expect the Democracy of Australia, through its elected representatives to erect an edifice in which their liberties will be preserved in a way worthy of the rights we have inherited. That is one reason why I object to the attempt of the Ministry to compel us to deal with the measure as if it were of uo importance. If the Standing Orders be not suspended, we shall have time to carefully study it, and so to avoid the making of any mistake. The Senate makes few mistakes; but an error in a Bill providing the basis of election to this Parliament would be far more material than a mistake made in any ordinary piece of legislation.

I propose later on to point to a remarkable provision in this Bill, but at the moment I cannot lay my hands on it. If it be carried at it stands, then an elector, on entering a polling booth, may be called upon to vote for six candidates for a House of Representatives division by marking the ballot-paper “ 1,” ‘2,” “3,” “4,” “5,” and “ 6” in the order of his preference, while in the event of six candidates standing for the representation of any one State in the Senate, he will merely have to put a cross opposite the names of three candidates. In the excitement attaching to an election^ a voter might confuse his ballot-papers, and put a cross opposite three names on the ballot-paper for the House of Representatives division, while in the case of the Senate ballot-paper he might proceed to 3et out the order of his preference. If he discovered his mistake before he had deposited his ballot-papers in the ballot-box, and attempted to correct it by substituting crosses for the figures .in the ca3e of the Senate ballot-paper, that ballot-paper would be declared informal under this provision, since it would have more than one mark upon it. Should we not adopt a system which is not likely to cause any confusion in the minds of the electors? Why should we rush this Bill through? Owing to the rushing tactics adopted by the Government, .1 have not had time to carefully go through it, and I am therefore compelled to read it almost line by line in order to prove the statement 1 have just made.

Since the inception of this Parliament the electors of Corangamite, at every Federal election, have had to place a cross opposite the name of the candidate for whom they wished to vote, but on this occasion, if this Bill is applied to the by-election for that constituency, their ballot-papers will be informal if they mark them in that way. They will not have had an opportunity to read this measure, and so to make themselves familiar with the rigid and drastic changes for which it provides in the method of voting, and the suspension of the Standing Orders so as to permit the Bill to be rushed through will not give us time to acquaint them of those changes.

Senator Bakhap:

– There would have been no Federation without the adoption of that principle.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thoroughly agree with the honorable senator. I know the suspicion, distrust, and fear of consequences in the minds of the people of the smaller States would have made Federation absolutely impossible if that concession to them had not been made. But I venture to say that seventeen years of Federation have removed such feeling from the minds of all thinking people in all the States. There was suspicion in the minds of the people of the larger States, as well as of the smaller States. I can remember that I frequently voiced the objection to New South Wales, with five or six times the voting power of Tasmania, having only an equal vote in the Senate. Seventeen years of Federation have removed those doubts and suspicions from the minds of all classes of electors in all the States. During the last seventeen years Federation has justified itself, and the people are to-day willing to be governed by Australians, no matter in what part of the Commonwealth they may live. They do not now contend that State boundaries and geographical lines should necessarily be taken into consideration in detennining the representation of the people in this Parliament. This Bill may not make any alteration in this respect; but I have not yet had time to read it, and I am, therefore, anxious that the Standing Orders should not ibe suspended to hurry it through.

I find that the Bill further provides -

Part X. -Writs for Elections. 59. (I) Writs for the election of Senators or Members of the House of Representatives may be in the Form A or Form B respectively in the Schedule, and shall fix the dates for - (a.) The nomination,

The polling, and

The return of the writ.

For the purposes of this Act a writ shall be deemed to have been issued at the hour of six o’clock in the afternoon of the day on which the writ was issued.

Writs for the election of Senators shall be addressed to the respective Commonwealth Electoral Officers for the States for which the elections are to bc held.

– The honorable senator, so far as the working classes are concerned - although no doubt, in his own “genial way, he thinks he represents them-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - I think the honorable senator is getting a little wide of the question of the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Senator GARDINER:

-! should like to complete the sentence in justice to Senator Fairbairn ; and I must say that, to me, it was extraordinary to see that gentleman and Senator Plain, another champion of Labour, seeking the suffrages of the people as members of the same party. I do not know whether the honorable senators I have mentioned repudiate my description of them as Conservatives, with no time for democratic changes, but under the principal Act there were means by which even these extremes in polities-

– I am pleased to find that Senator Russell is correct, and that the writs for the Senate are still to be issued by the State Governors. That is explained in a footnote to clause 59, which, of course, I have not observed before; and it is in the following terms : -

See sections 12, 32, and 33 of the Constitution : -

TheGovernor of any State may cause writs to be issued for elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate, the writs shall be issued within ten days from the proclamation of such dissolution.

The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.

After the first general election, the writ shall be issued within ten days of the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.

Whenever a vacancy happens in the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall issue his writ for the election of a new member, or if there is no Speaker, or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the GovernorGeneral in Council may issue the writ.

We now come to clauses 60, 61, 62, and 63, as follows: -

Writs for the election of Senators shall be addressed to the respective Commonwealth Electoral Officers for the States for which the elections are to be held. 61. (1) Writs for the election of Members of the House of Representatives shall be addressed to the respective Divisional Returning Officers for the Divisions for which the elections are to be held, and may be issued through the Chief Electoral Officer.
1. The Chief Electoral Officer may advise any Divisional Returning Officer by telegram of the issue of the writ for a House of Representatives election and the particulars thereof, and for the purposes of section sixty-seven of this Act the Divisional Returning Officer may act on such advice as if the writ had been received by him.
The date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days after the date of the writ.
The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than seven days nor more than thirty days after the date of nomination.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon) . - Order ! I trust the honorable senator will be able to connect his remarks with the motion.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, Mr. Deputy President, and I am about to make an excellent illustration. The Master, when faced with the question of breaking the Sabbath, asked, if an animal should fall into a bog, would not those who criticised Him assist to get it out? So. whenever I address meetings on a Sunday, I am really assisting the asses out of the bog - really dragging them out of the bog into which they have fallen, simply because they have followed the old Tory leaders who are now supported by such men as Senator Lynch and Senator Earle. However, it is usually only on urgent matters that I address Sunday meetings, though I must confess that, in my old age, I am breaking away somewhat from the strict Sabbatarian views which I held some years ago. But I shall leave that aspect of the question and return to the Bill -

Clauses 66 and 67 read -

In the case of a general election for the House of Representatives the same day shall be fixed for the polling in each Division, and all writs shall be made returnable on the same day,
On the receipt of a writ the officer to whom it is directed shall indorse thereon the date of its receipt; and shall -
1. in the case of a writ for a Senate election, advertise its receipt and particulars in not less than two newspapers circulating in the State, and forward a copy of the writ to each Divisional Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer in the State;
2. in the case of a writ for a House of Representatives election, advertise its receipt and particulars in not less than two newspapers circulating in the Division, and forward a copy of the writ to each Assistant Returning Officer in the Division.

I think we might insert an amendment in clause 67, providing that the newspapers bo not paid for advertisements, or, if they are paid, that the price be fixed. A general election, now that peace is at hand, will probably occur only once in three years, and this suggestion would impose no hardship on newspaper proprietors. If I may quote the Argus and the Age as an illustration, I presume that if an election occurred for the South Melbourne division, advertisements, perhaps 3 inches in length, would be inserted in both papers, and the charge probably would be £1 or £2 per inch for notices which not one elector in ten would ever read.

Senator Russell:

– Not one in a hundred.

Senator GARDINER:

– Why should we tie ourselves down in this hard and fast manner and really subsidize the newspapers? It appears that for years we have simply been following, step by step, the draftsmanship of the first Act, and have been inventing nothing for ourselves. This is a big Bill. It furnishes to men like myself, who have had long experience in parliamentary life, an opportunity of giving other members of the Senate the benefit of some of the knowledge collected during all those years. Yet, when the time comes, we find the Minister wishes to suspend the Standing Orders in order to rush the Bill through without delay.

Senator Lynch:

– You are having the time of your life.

Senator GARDINER:

– I can assure the honorable senator that I would be having the time of my life if I had an opportunity of going into all these innocent-looking clauses to see if I could not -effect improvements. We now have a splendid opportunity. We could devote practically months to the consideration of this Bill, and the country would profit by our deliberations. Instead of that, this measure, which is supposed to be non-party, is to be rushed through the Senate by the will of one party. What has been happening in the last eighteen months that we did not have an opportunity of dealing with this Bill then? If it is urgent, then by their failure to introduce it earlier the Government stand convicted of being negligent of the interests of the country. But even without the suspension of the Standing Orders the passage of the Bill could be expedited, if any honorable senator on the other side cared to move “ That the question be now put.” I have no hesitation in saying that no member of the Senate has read the Bill from cover to cover since it has passed the other House. I believe that during the last few hours I have read more of the measure than has any other honorable senator.

Part XI. - The Nominations.

No person shall be capable of being elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives unless duly nominated.
To entitle a person to be nominated as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives he must be qualified under the Constitution* to be elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Section 16. The qualification of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives.

Section 34. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives shall be as follows: - (i.) He must be of the full age of twentyone years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been for three years at least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen : (ii.) He must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.

Section 43. A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House.

Section 44. Any person who - (i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or (ii.) Is attainted of treason, or ‘has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or (iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent : or (iv.) Holds any office under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of. the, revenues of the Commonwealth: or (v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in - common with the other members of “an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But sub-section (iv.) does not apply to the. office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for ta State, or to the receipt of pay, half-pay, or a pension by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s Navy or Army; or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the Naval or Military Forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

Instead of rushing the Bill through, it might be better for the Government to consider whether alterations could not be made in the whole Constitution. I am not sure whether the War Precautions. Act ceases to operate immediately peace is signed, or six months after it, but even when the war is over the powers conferred by that Act may be very much needed by the Government. Instead of suspending the Standing Orders to pass a Bill with the evident intention of dealing with the Corangamite election, the Government would be much better advised to bring in a measure to amend the Constitution to confer on the Commonwealth those powers which are necessary to enable them to do all the business of repatriation in connexion with which they will find themselves very much hampered when the War Precautions Act ceases to exist.

Clause 70 provides -

No person who is at the date of nomination, or who was at any time within fourteen days prior to the date of nomination a member of the Parliament of a State, shall be capable of being nominated as a Senator, or as a member of the House of Representatives.

There is no good reason for a hard and fast proposal of that kind. If the Minister will promise that on twenty clauses I shall pick, where I think legitimate improvements can be made, he will afford me the right to move amendments, half my objection to this motion will disappear at once. At present we have no assurance that the Bill will not be pushed through in one day after the Standing Orders are suspended, because if the Government have the majority to do one thing they have it to do the other. The intention of the Standing Orders in providing certain stages for Bills is to secure to every member the right of discussion at certain periods. Unless the Standing Orders are suspended, all those stages cannot be passed in one day. The first reading is not debatable, but the interval before the second reading is meant to give members the opportunity to read the Bill. That is our just right. With the suspension of the Standing Orders that interval disappears. As the Bill only passed another place on Friday, the Minister’s remark that the Bill has been in our boxes for days is quite beside the point. I undertake to say that not even the Minister has read the Bill in the form in which it has just come from another place.

The nextclauses are -

A nomination may be in Form C or Form D in the Schedule applicable to the case and shall -
1. name the candidate, his place of residence and occupation : and
2. be signed by not less than six persons entitled to vote at the election, for which the candidate is nominated. 72. (1) Nominations of Senators may be made to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State for which the election is to be held, and nominations of Members of the House of Representatives may be made to the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division for which the election is to be held.
1. Nominations may be made at any time after the issue of the writ and before the hour of nomination.
No nomination shall be valid unless -
1. the person nominated consents to act if elected, and declares that he is qualified under the Constitution, to be elected as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives, as the case may be;
2. the nomination paper is received after the issue of the writ a-nd before the hour of nomination; and
3. at the time of the delivery of the nomination paper the person nominated or some person on his behalf deposits with the’ Commonwealth Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer, as the case requires, the sum of Twenty-five pounds in money or in Australian notes or in a banker’s cheque.
The consent of the person nominated to act if elected and the declaration of qualification shall be sufficient if he signs the form of consent and declaration at the foot’ of the nomination paper, but the Commonwealth Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer receiving the nomination may accept any other form of consent and declaration whether accompanying^thc nomination paper or not that he deems satisfactory, and such acceptance shall be final.

We should distinctly define all the conditions, instead of leaving it to the Returning Officers to say what is satisfactory and what is not; but the motion leaves the Government open to the suspicion that they do not care what happens so long as they get the Bill through. There may be a number of different decisions by different Returning Officers, and, instead of having a uniform electoral law, we may have a mongrel system. Ordinarily, any honorable senator has the right at different periods of a Bill to point out its defects. Surely we are entitled to that opportunity on this measure. The Government are forgetting their dignity and what is due to the Senate by moving that the Standing Orders, which represent the wisdom of Committee after Committee of the Senate, shall not apply to so all-importantt a measure. The system of preferential voting ought not to be suddenly forced on the electors of Corangamite. If it is applied, there are sure to be five or six candidates, and party lines and party pre-selections will, to some extent, pass away. The electors who have always marked their ballotpapers with a cross will be called upon, on the 14th December, to mark their preferences by means of numbers. If a man marks his preference against the names of five candidates, and fails to mark the sixth, his vote will be declared informal, although his intention is perfectly clear. If is scarcely a month to the election, and it will be impossible to fully inform the people of Corangamite as to the new law under which they are to vote. One of the purposes of the debate which the Standing Orders provide for is to let the electors know what is taking place. There is no provision to accept as formal a ballot-paper where the intention of the elector is made clear by the preference he has marked in . regard to the first threecandidates. If, without the suspension of the Standing Orders, the

Minister will give me the right of reasonable ‘and moderate discussion of .those provisions which I think mark exceptional changes in the electoral law, he will get his Bill through much more quickly than by the other method. After the first reading was passed, the Minister might well have agreed to move the second reading on the following day. An intelligent debate on the principles of the measure could have followed, as we would then, have been given an opportunity to read the measure through, and digest it. We should not be asked on a Bill of this magnitude to follow the procedure adopted in regard to Supply Bills, which practically are no more than measures to provide for the payment of the members of the Public Service -

No nomination shall be rejected by reason i f any formal defect or error therein if the Commonwealth Electoral Officer or Divisional Returning Officer receiving the nomination is satisfied that the provisions of this Act have been substantially complied with.

This measure entirely alters our system of voting and departs from the electoral principles that have long been in existence in all the States, with the exception perhaps of Tasmania. In Tasmania, proportional representation, or some system approximating to it, is in vogue. Having worked under that system, Tasmanians are perfectly familiar with it, and there is no just reason why the Senate should not have the benefit of the experience of Tasmania’s representatives with regard to it. If the discussion is continued under the Standing Orders, we shall obtain it; but if the Standing Orders be suspended there will be devoted to the consideration of this Bill only such scanty time as Ministers may be prepared to allow. I shall be able, at all events, to point out later on that I made an effort to prevent the Bill being carried through the Senate without honorable senators being afforded a reasonable opportunity to gain some knowledge of its provisions. Those who are supporting the Government should join with me in trying to prevent the Standing Orders being suspended in a way that has neve* happened before.

Clause 76 of the Bill provides -

The deposit made by or on behalf of a candidate at an election for the Senate shall be retained pending the election, and aftr the election shall be returned to him or to some person authorized by him in writing to receive it unless he fails to obtain at the election more than one-fifth of the number of votes polled by the successful candidate who obtained the smallest number of votes at the election, in which case it shall be forfeited to the King.

Is there any reason why that clause should not be fully discussed? I shall not say that the experience of the National party at the recent by-election for Swan is responsible for the introduction of this Bill, but it certainly is responsible for the anxiety of Ministers to get it through as quickly as possible. Probably the most public-spirited man amongst those who submitted themselves at the Swan by-election - the man who stood, perhaps, for the greatest moral principle - was the prohibition candidate. He had as much right as any other candidate to submit himself, but because he espoused an unpopular cause - a cause in respect of which the people have ,not yet been educated - he secured something like 1,000 votes, whereas the successful candidate polled about 7,000 votes. The result is that he will forfeit hi3 deposit. In other words, we are going to fine him £25. Surely such a provision needs to be” reasonably discussed. It is iniquitous to impose such a penalty upon a man merely because he espouses an unpopular cause. What the majority rejects to-day is often granted with acclamation tomorrow. That is the history of development, and the prohibitionist candidate for Swan, unless he is a very old man, may live to see the principle for which he f ought accepted by the people of Australia. I should like an opportunity to make a vigorous protest against the continuance of this iniquitous provision. There is ample time before the 14th December, the date of the by-election for Corangamite, to discuss the Bill without suspending the ‘Standing Orders. I should be prepared, if necessary, to sit every day in the week if the Minister in charge of the Bill .would agree to deal with it in easy stages. Clause 76 involves a big question of principle, it practically applies a property qualification, since it provides that a man who cannot lodge a deposit of £25 shall not be allowed to become a candidate. Some people will say that a man who has not behind him a party that is prepared to supply him .with such a deposit should not be a candidate. But why should a man be dependent upon any party? If we had ample time I am sure we should be able to adduce good arguments in opposition to this clause, which goes on further to provide as follows : -

The deposit made by or on behalf of a candidate at an election for the House of Representatives shall be retained pending the election, and after the election shall be returned to him or to some person authorized by him in writing to receive it unless he wa3 not elected and the number of votes polled in his favour as first preferences is not more than one-fifth of the total number of first preference votes polled by the successful candidate.

Here we have conflicting principles applying to elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. This demand for a deposit is an outrage upon justice.

Senator Needham:

– I draw your attention, sir, to the fact that there is not a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GARDINER:

– Would I be in order in asking for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage?

Senator Pearce:

– I object; I do not want a repetition of this.

Senator GARDINER:

– I made the request in the interests of honorable senators opposite, but the Minister remains inexorable. He insists upon the Standing Orders being suspended so that the Bill may be rushed through. I would point out to him that this clause does not apply equally to both Houses, a3 it should do. Later on there will be cause to complain if we neglect our present opportunity to provide for a uniform system of election to both Houses. With the preferential system of voting we are likely to have more than one candidate standing in the interests of each party. The old system of one candidate for each party will pass away, because with preferential voting it would be impossible to accuse a man of splitting the vote of his party by submitting himself for election. Very often the approved candidate of a party machine will ,not secure a majority of the votes polled. I fail to understand why we should provide for a penalty of £25 being paid by a candidate who does not secure one-fifth of the number of the first preference votes polled by the successful candidate. If the Government are anxious to collect £25 from a man seeking election, they should look to the successful candidate as being best able to pay it. The proposal to inflict this penalty upon unsuccessful candidates is certainly most harsh.

Further provisions of the Bill are as follow : -

( 1 ) In elections for the Senate the place of nomination shall be stated in the writ.
1. In elections for the House of Representatives, the chief polling place for the Division shall be the place of nomination therein.
The hour of nomination- shall be twelve o’clock noon on the day of nomination. 79. (1) In the case of a Senate election, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State for which the election is being held shall, at the hour of nomination, attend at the place of nomination, and shall there publicly produce all nomination papers received by him, and declare the names and residences of all candidates nominated.
1. In the case of a House of Representatives election, the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division for which the election is being held shall, at the hour of nomination, attend at the place of nomination for the Division, and shall there publicly produce all nomination papers received by him, and declare the names and residences “of all candidates nominated.
A candidate may withdraw his consent to his nomination at any time before the hour of nomination by lodging with the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the case of a Senate election, or with the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division in the case of a House of Representatives election, a notice of withdrawal in the prescribed form, and thereupon the nomination shall be cancelled, and the deposit lodged shall be returned.
In the case of the death of any candidate before the date of election the deposit lodged by him shall be returned to his personal representatives. 82. (1) -In the case of a Senate election, if the number of candidates nominated is not greater than the number of candidates required to be elected, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer shall declare the candidates nominated duly elected.
1. In the case of a House of Representatives election, if one candidate only is nominated the Divisional Returning Officer shall declare that candidate duly elected.
2. If in any election a greater number of candidates than are required to be elected are nominated, the proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, and the regulations relating to voting before polling day, stand adjourned to polling day.
If after the nominations have been declared and before polling day any candidate dies and the candidates remaining are not greater in number than the candidates required to be elected they shall forthwith be declared to be elected and the writ returned.

S4. (1) Whenever an election wholly or partially fails a new writ shall forthwith be issued for a supplementary election.

An election shall be deemed to have wholly failed if no candidate is nominated or returned as elected.
An election shall be deemed to have partially failed whenever one or more candidates is returned as elected, but not the full number required to be elected.

Suppose there are three vacancies for the Senate and four candidates are nominated. If after their nomination two of the candidates die, that would be a partial return, and the two candidates who had fulfilled every provision necessary for their legal nomination, and who might have expended the full limit of expenditure allowed by the law to secure their election, would have to go through the whole business again. I venture to say that, in such a case, to penalize candidates who were legally nominated would be un-‘ fair. It may be said that I am suggesting an exceptional case; but it is not very improbable, and we should make provision for it.

I shall now leave that part of the Bill and refer honorable senators to Part XII., dealing with voting by post. The Labour party can take credit for having first introduced the system of voting by post. Our idea was to make voting as convenient as practicable; but we were driven by the corrupt methods adopted in using the postal vote to repeal it, so far as its general application was concerned. I have not had time to see the extent of its application under this Bill, but if I may judge from some comments on the subject in another place, there were two complaints made concerning it by different sets of individuals. One complained that the postal vote provided for by the Bill does not go far enough, and the other that it goes too far. Although the law was carefully administered by our electoral officers, my experience of the postal vote was most unsatisfactory. I was in hearty accord with it and yet found myself, after some years of experience of its operation, reluctantly compelled to vote for its repeal. This Bill proposes to reinstate a system which Parliament, after practical experience of it, decided to wipe out. “We should not hurry it through now by suspending the Standing Orders when the advocates of the system have been thoroughly satisfied that its manipulation led to such corrupt practices that it was -necessary to repeal it. I agree that Parliament has a perfect right to change its mind, but when a grave change of this nature is proposed, it should be fully debated, and the Standing Orders should not be suspended to give effect to it hastily.

This is a Bill which should be discussed,, not only for day?, but for weeks. It contains over 200 clauses and about fifty distinct principles, and yet the Minister desires that it should be put through this week. Honorable senators have in the different States had experience of varying electoral provisions, and have accumulated information on the details of voting. Queensland has a system of compulsory voting in force which has not yet been tried in any other State, whilst the electors of that State have had experience of several elections under the system. I am quite in doubt as to the benefits or effects of it. I have a natural objection to compulsion, and I have still grave doubts as to whether even compulsory enrolment is wise.

I have no doubt at all that the provision under which an elector who changes his address from one subdivision of an electorate to another is liable to a fine unless he notifies the change of address to the Returning Officer is often the cause of very grave injustice. There might be some justification for penalizing an elector who removes from one division to another without notifying the Returning Officer, but there is no justification for fining an elector who moves from one subdivision to another of the same division. Some electoral officers administer this provision in accordance with the strict letter of the law, whilst in some divisions there is scarcely ever a ease in which a penalty is inflicted under it. I think that we should have an opportunity of saying all that we desire to say about such a provision at every stage of this Bill, but once the Standing Orders are suspended we are subject to the caprice of the Minister in charge of the measure. I recognise the responsibility of party men, and I know that it is only upon matters of very considerable importance that members of Parliament will vote against their party leaders, especially when the Government are anxious that their business should be hurried through. Oan any claim be honestly put forward for the urgent passing of this Bill?

Senator GRANT:

– The Corangamite election.

Senator GARDINER:

– No, because the Corangamite election will not take place until the 14th December. There is no reason why the Minister should not make his second-reading speech on the Bill now, and grant an adjournment of the debate until next Monday. If he is willing to give time to honorable senators to read the Bill and reasonable time for its discussion, there will be no attempt by ‘ honorable senators on this side to unduly prolong debate upon it. As the date fixed for the Corangamite election is the 14th December, why should this Bill be hurried through before the 20th or 30th November? There is no reason why a second-reading speech on this Bill should be attempted by the Minister at this hour of the morning. I venture to say that he could not do justice to the provisions of this Bill in a speech of less than three or four hours. If he commenced the second-reading speech at half-past 4, he might conclude at half-past 8 a.m. He might allow an adjournment then until 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and we might continue the discussion of the measure until the time agreed upon for adjourning in the evening. My fear is that unless the Minister intended to rush the Bill through he would not bother about suspending the Standing Orders. He cannot say that he expected any undue opposition from this side or any undue delay in the passing of the measure. With the hopeless minority of the party on this side it would be absurd to suggest that we might delay the passing of the measure until 14th December. The reason why I have made a somewhat prolonged address on the motion now before the Chair is that I desire to emphasize my strong opposition to the suspension of the Standing Orders after the first reading in order to expedite the passage of a measure of this character. It is only the urgency of a measure that can justify the Government in asking for a suspension of the Standing Orders in dealing with it or can justify their supporters in voting for such a motion.

There is not one honorable senator opposite who is not in his heart at variance with the Minister on this question, but I expect that honorable senators will give a party vote upon the motion. I do not think I have ever complained of that, because I realize that loyalty to party is essential under the highly organized system of ‘ party government we have at the present time. I have never wittingly done anything to make political capital out of that loyalty. As a member of a Government for a time, I found that nothing made the government of the country so difficult as the free-lance who could not be depended on whenever the Government required his services. Whilst I recognise that party loyalty is essential for the successful conduct of party government, I realize at the same time that Governments owe a duty to their supporters. Surely it is one of the chief responsibilities of a Government that they shall not put their supporters into the unenviable position of having, for party reasons, to do unnecessary things, to their own discredit, to the discredit of the party to which they belong, and of the Senate.

I have discussed this Bill, and I hope that senators opposite will discuss it at equal length, realizing, as they must, that this is an opportunity to show the Government that their supporters should not be expected to do unreasonable things. It ought to be made quite clear by the Government that there is real urgency and real need for the exceptional steps now proposed in regard to what is the most important measure we have had to consider.

Clause 86 is as follows : -

Subject to sub-section (2) of this section the following persons are authorized witnesses within the meaning of this Act: -
1. all Commonwealth Divisional Returning Officers, Assistant Returning Officers, and officers of the Public Service of the Commonwealth permanently employed in the office of any Commonwealth Electoral Officer of a State or Divisional Returning Officer; all Commonwealth Electoral Registrars; all Postmasters or Postmistresses or postal officials in charge of post offices; all Police or Stipendiary or Special Magistrates of the Commonwealth or of a State ; all Justices of the Peace; all Head Teachers in the employment of a State Education Department; all officers of the Department of Trade and Customs; all members of the Police Force of the Commonwealth or of a State; all Mining Warders and Mining Wardens’ Clerks in the Public Service of a State; all legally qualified Medical Practitioners; all Officers in charge of Quarantine Stations; all Officers in charge of Lighthouses; all Pilots in the service of the Commonwealth or of a State, or of any local governing body; all Telegraph line repairers permanently employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, who are in charge of working parties; all Railway Station Masters and Night Officers in charge who are permanently employed in the Railway service of the Commonwealth or of a State; all superintendents of mercantile marine and their deputies while permanently employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth or of a State; and
2. all persons or classes of persons, employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth or of a State, who are declared by proclamation to be authorized witnesses within the meaning of this Act.
No person who is a candidate at any election shall be an authorized witness at that election.

I am not able to show the difference between this clause and the provision in the principal Act, and it is quite possible that there is no difference or change. I can only repeat the complaint that the motion before us will, if carried, deprive us of that interval of rest and quiet in which we could make ourselves familiar with the measure, and thus really save time in the discussion. It is quite clear that candidates should not be authorized witnesses, but when we find it provided that all justices of the peace are eligible, we might as well include all those who are not justices of the pence.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– The honorable senator is now discussing, the Bill rather than the reasons why the Standing Orders should not be suspended.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank you, Mr. President, and will get back to the reasons, one of the chief of which is that the Bill is very far-reaching, and that the suspension of the Standing Orders, if agreed to, would deprive us of the opportunity of learning what is . really in it. If the suspension of the Standing Orders meant that. the rights which those Standing Orders give us would be in charge of the President, I should not have made any protest, certainly not at what may seem undue length; but if the Standing Orders are suspended, it means that we shall have to appeal to the Minister, and not to the President. It may be said that even if the Standing Orders are suspended, the Government majority may be trusted not to force the measure through with undue speed ; but if there is that good intention, why do honorable senators opposite publicly advertise the fact that they wish to force the measure through? Why should they exhibit the Senate in the light of factious scheming for some petty advantage? There is no need for the motion, and if it be not carried, I venture to say that the Bill will be put through at whatever minute the Minister desires. The Standing Orders give the Minister all the powers that are necessary to have the Bill passed when he chooses. If there were any doubt as to this, there might be some justification for the novel procedure on the part of the Government in regard to so important a Bill. I defy the Minister, when replying, to cite one instance in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament when the suspension of the Standing Orders has been moved immediately on the introduction of a measure of the kind. To me it seems unthinkable that the Government should attempt such a thing, and have sufficient supporters behind them to see it accomplished.

I now come to clause 87 and following clauses : - 87. (1) An authorized witness shall not witness the signature of any elector to an application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper unless -

he has satisfied himself as to the identity of the applicant;
he has seen the applicant sign the application in his the applicant’s own handwriting; and
he knows that the statements contained in the application are true, or has satisfied himself by inquiry from the applicant or otherwise that the statements contained in the application are true.

Penalty t Fifty pounds, or imprisonment for one month.

The authorized witness shall sign his name in . his own handwriting on the application in the space provided for the purpose, and shall add the title under which he acts as an authorized witness and the date.
An authorized witness shall not persuade or induce, or associate himself with any person in persuading or inducing, any person to make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.

Penalty: Fifty pounds, or imprisonment for one month. 88. (1) The Divisional Returning Officer who receives the application if he is satisfied that it is properly signed by the applicant elector and is properly witnessed, shall deliver or post to the elector a postal vote certificate printed on an envelope addressed to the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division for which the applicant declares that he is enrolled, and one postal ballot-paper for a Senate election, and one postal ballot-paper for a House of Representatives election, or either as the case requires.

The postal vote certificate, and postal ballot-papers for a Senate election and for a House of Representatives election respectively, may be in the prescribed form. 89. (1) All applications for postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers received by a Divisional Returning Officer shall, if they relate to the Division for which he is Divisional Returning Officer, be kept by him, or if they relate to another Division, shall, after being indorsed by him with the date of the issue of the postal vote certificate and postal ballotpaper, forthwith be sent by him to the Divisional Returning Officer for that Division.
All applications for postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers shall be open to public inspection at all convenient times during office hours, until the election can be no longer questioned. 90. (1) The Divisional Returning Officer shall number all applications for postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers issued by him in consecutive order, and shall number each postal vote certificate with a number corresponding with the number on the application.
The Divisional Returning Officer shall initial on the ‘back all postal ballot-papers issued. The initials should be placed in such a position as to be easily seen when the ballotpaper is folded so as to conceal the vote. 91. (1) The Returning Officer for the Division in respect of which postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers have been issued shall, if there , is time conveniently to do so, note on the certified lists of voters the names of all electors to whom postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers have been issued.
If there is not time conveniently to note on the proper certified list of voters the issue of a postal vote certificate and postal ballotpaper, the Divisional Returning Officer shall immediately advise the presiding officer to whom the certified list of voters has been furnished of the issue of the postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.
An elector to whom a postal vote certificate has been issued shall not be entitled to vote at any polling booth unless he first delivers to the presiding officer for cancellation his postal vote certificate and postal ballotpaper.
1. The following directions for regulating voting by means of postal ballot-papers are to be substantially observed: -
1. The elector shall exhibit his postal ballot-paper (in blank) and his postal vote certificate to an authorized witness;
2. The elector shall then and there, in the presence of the authorized witness, but so that the authorized witness cannot see the vote, mark his vote on the ballot-paper in the prescribed manner, and shall fold the ballotpaper so that the vote cannot be seen;
3. If the elector’s sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, the authorized witness if so requested by the elector, shall mark the elector’s vote on the ballot-paper in the presence of a witness and shall then and there fold the ballot-paper so that the vote cannot be seen;
4. The elector shall then and there, in the presence of the authorized witness, sign his name in his own hand- * writing on the postal vote certificate in the place provided for the signature of the voter;
5. The authorized witness shall then and there sign his name in his own handwriting on the postal vote certificate in the place provided for the signature of the authorized witness, and shall add the title under which he acts as an authorized witness and the date;
6. The authorized witness Shall then and there place the ballot-paper in the envelope addressed to the Divisional

Returning Officer, fasten the envelope, and hand it to the voter, who shall forthwith post or deliver it, or cause ii to be posted or delivered, to the Divisional Returning Officer; (g) The authorized witness shall not, un less the electors sight is so impaired that he cannot vote without assistance, look at or make himself acquainted with the vote given by the elector, and, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, shall not suffer or permit any person (other than the elector) to see or become acquainted with the elector’s vote, or to assist the elector -to vote, or to interfere in any way with the elector in relation to ‘his vote.

Every authorized witness shall -
1. comply with the preceding section in so far as it is to be complied with on his part :
2. see that the directions in the preceding section are complied with by every elector voting by post before him, and by every person present when the elector votes; and
3. refrain from disclosing any knowledge of the vote of any elector voting by noSt before him.

Penalty: One hundred pounds, or imprisonment for three months.

Any person to whom an envelope containing or purporting to contain a postal ballot-paper is entrusted by a voter for the purpose of posting or delivery to a Divisional Returning Officer, and who fails to forthwith post or deliver the envelope, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Fifty pounds, or imprisonment for one -month.

Any” person present when an elector is before an authorized witness for the purpose of voting by post shall -
1. obey all directions of the authorized witness ;
2. refrain from making any communication whatever to the elector in relation to his vote;
3. refrain from assisting the elector or in any manner interfering with him in relation to his vote; and
4. except as provided in paragraph (c) of section ninety-two, refrain from looking at the elector’s vote or from doing anything whereby he might become acquainted with the elector’s vote.

Penalty: One hundred pounds, or imprisonment for three months.

At the scrutiny the Divisional Returning Officer shall produce all applications for postal vote certificates, and postal ballot-papers, and shall produce unopened all envelopes containing postal votes received up to the close of the poll, and shall: -
1. compare the signature of the elector on each postal vote certificate with the signature of the same elector on the application for the certificate, and allow the scrutineers to inspect both signatures;
2. if satisfied that the signature on the certificate is that of the elector who signed the application for the certificate and that the signature purports to be witnessed by an authorized witness, and that the elector is enrolled for the Division, accept the ballot-paper for further scrutiny, but, if not so satisfied, disallow the ballot-paper without opening the envelope in which it is contained;
3. withdraw, from the envelopes bearing the postal vote certificates all postal ballot-papers accepted for further scrutiny, and, without inspecting or unfolding the ballot-papers or allowing any other person to do so, place them in a locked and sealed ballotbox by themselves for further (scrutiny;
4. seal up in separate parcels and preserve -
1. all envelopes bearing postal vote certificates relating to postal ballot-papers accepted for further scrutiny, and
2. all unopened envelopes containing postal ballot-papers disallowed ; and
3. proceed with the scrutiny of the postal ballot-papers which have been accepted for further scrutiny.
A postal vote shall not be rejected because in the case of any candidate his surname only has been written thereon if no other candidate has the same surname, or by reason of any mistake in spelling where the elector’s intention is clear.

This disposes of that part of the Bill. I am not sure whether there is any new provision, but, if not, perhaps no danger need be anticipated even if it were hurried through without discussion.

Clause 98 and the following clauses read -

Part XIII.- The Polling. 98. (1) If the proceedings on the day of nomination stand adjourned to polling day, the Returning Officer shall immediately make all necessary . arrangements for taking the poll, and in particular shall -

appoint a presiding officer to preside at each polling placee, and all necessary assistant presiding officers, poll clerks, and” doorkeepers ;

provide and furnish proper polling booths and ballot-boxes; and

provide ballot-papers and all necessary certified lists of voters.

In any emergency on polling day due . to the absence of any assistant presiding officer, poll clerk, or doorkeeper, or to an; unforeseen and continued pressure at the polling which cannot be met by the duly appointed officers, the presiding officer may appoint any person to act as assistant presiding officer, poll clerk, or doorkeeper, and the person so appointed or acting shall be deemed to have been duly appointed if the Divisional Returning Officer afterwards ratifies the appointment by appointing that person to be assistant presiding officer, poll clerk, or doorkeeper, as the case may be.

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

Any assistant presiding officer may, subject to the direction of the presiding officer, exercise all or any of the powers of the presiding officer, and shall, in respect of the exercise of those powers, be deemed to be the presiding officer.

Any presiding officer may appoint a substitute to perform his duties during his temporary absence, and such substitute may, while so acting, exercise all the powers of the presiding officer, and shall, in the exercise of those powers, be deemed to be the presiding officer. 100. No part of any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquorshall be used for the purpose of any polling booth. 101. Polling booths shall have separate voting compartments, constructed so as to screen the voters from observation while they are marking their ballot-papers, and each voting compartment shall be furnished with a pencil for the use of voters. 102. Each polling booth shall be provided with the necessary ballot-boxes, constructed and fitted as prescribed. 103. The certified list of voters to . be used by a presiding officer at a polling place shall be the list of the electors on the roll enrolled for the Subdivision for which the polling place is prescribed certified by the Divisional Returning Officer, and shall before the hour of commencing the poll be delivered to the Presiding Officer for his guidance during the polling. 104. Ballot-papers to be used in a Senate election may be in theForm Ein the Schedule. 105. Ballot-papers to be used in . a House of Representatives election may be in the Form F in the Schedule.

As these are new provisions I should like to refer honorable senators to the schedule which sets out a sample of ballot-paper for the Senate and the House of Representatives -

page 7725

FORM E

Ballot-paper.

State of[here insert name of State’].

Election of [here insert number] Senators. Directions. - The elector should mark his vote on this ballot-paper by making a cross in the square opposite the name of each candidate for whom he votes. He must vote for the full number of candidates to be elected.

page 7725

QUESTION

FORM F

Ballot-paper.

State of [here insert name of State].

Electoral Division of [here insert name of Division] .

Election of one Member of the House of Representatives.

Directions.. - The elector should mark his vote on this ballot-paper by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes as his first preference; and must give contingent votes for all the remaining candidates by placing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires), im the squares opposite their names, so as to indicate the order of his preference for them.

In printing the ballot-papers -

the names of all candidates duly nominated shall be printed in alphabetical order according to their surnames;
1. if there are two or more candidates of the same surname, their names shall be printed according to the alphabetical order of their Christian names, or, if their Christian names are the same, then according to the alphabetical order of their residences, which shall in such case be arranged and stated on the ballot-paper;
where similarity in the names of two or more candidates is likely to cause confusion, the names of such candidates may be arranged with such description or addition as will distinguish them from one another; and
except as otherwise provided by the regulations, a square shall be printed opposite the name of each candidate. 107. (1) No ballot-paper shall be delivered to any voter without being first initialed by the proper officer, and an exact account shall be kept of all initialed ballot-papers.
1. ‘Che initials of the officer shall be placed on the back of the ballot-paper in such a position as to be easily seenwhen the ballot-paper is folded so as to conceal the names of the candidates. 108. (1) Scrutineers may be appointed by candidates to represent them at polling places during the polling, but so that not more than one scrutineer shall be allowed to each candidate at each polling booth or subdivision of a polling booth.
2. Appointments of scrutineers shall be made by notice in writing or by telegram addressed to the Returning Officer or Presiding Officer, and such notice or telegram shall be signed by the candidate, and shall give the name and address of the scrutineer. 109. (1) A scrutineer shall not -
interfere with or attempt to influence any elector within the polling booth; or
communicate with any person in the polling booth except so far as is” necessary in the discharge of his functions.

Penalty: Five pounds.

A scrutineer shall not be prevented from entering or leaving a polling booth during the polling, and, during his absence, a relieving scrutineer may act in his place, but so that only one scrutineer for each candidate shall be entitled to be present in the polling booth or subdivision of the polling booth at any one time.
A scrutineer who commits any breach of this section, or who misconducts himself, or who fails to obey the lawful directions of the presiding officer, may be removed from the polling booth by any constable or person authorized by the presiding officer to remove him. 110. No candidate shall in any way take part in the conduct of an election, and no person, other than the presiding officer, assistant presiding officers, poll clerks, doorkeepers, and scrutineers, and the electors voting and about to vote, shall be permitted to enter or remain in the polling booth during the polling except by permission of the presiding officer. 111. The polling shall be conducted as follows: -
1. Before- any vote is taken the presiding officer shall exhibit the ballot box empty, and shall then securely fasten its cover;
2. The poll shall open at8 o’clock in the morning and shall not close until all electors present in the polling booth at 8 o’clock in the evening, and desiring to vote, have voted;
3. The doors of the polling booth shall be closed at 8 o’clock in the evening, and no person shall be admitted after that hour to the polling booth for the purpose of voting;
4. At the close of the poll the presiding officer shall, in the presence of the poll clerk and of any scrutineers who may be in attendance, publicly close, fasten, seal, and take charge of the ballot-box, and with the least possible delay forward it for the purposes of scrutiny, and it shall on no account be opened except as allowed by this Act. 112. (1) In the case of a Senate election, an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the election of senators for the State for which he is enrolled.
In the case of a House of Representatives election, an elector shall only be admitted to vote for the election of a member for the Division for which he is enrolled.
For the purposes of this section, the electoral rolls in force at the time of the election shall be conclusive evidence of the right of each person enrolled thereon to vote as an elector, unless he shows by his answers to the questions prescribed by section one hundred and sixteen that he is not entitled to vote. 113. (1) An elector who will not on polling day be within 10 miles by the nearest practicable route of any polling booth in the Commonwealth may, subject to the regulations, be permitted to vote at any time after the issue, of the writ and before polling day, if he attends before any prescribed Commonwealth Electoral Registrar and makes a declaration in accordance with the prescribed form.
The ballot-paper to be used shall be in accordance with the form prescribed by the regulations.
The vote of the elector shall be marked on the ballot-paper in the presence of the Registrar, but so that the Registrar cannot see the vote, unless otherwise prescribed in the case of any elector who is so physically incapacitated or illiterate that he is unable to vote without assistance.
The vote having been marked on the ballot-paper, the ballot-paper shall be folded by the elector so as to conceal the vote and shall be handed to the Registrar, who shall thereupon in the” presence of the elector without unfolding it place it in an envelope, which he shall securely fasten and forthwith forward to the Returning Officer for the Division for which the elector declares that he is enrolled.
A ballot-paper under this section, having a vote marked thereon, shall not be informal by reason that the surname only of a candidate appears thereon, or by reason of any mistake or error in spelling, if the elector’s intention is clear.
The regulations may prescribe any matters (not inconsistent with this Act) necessary or conv nient to be prescribed for carrying this section into effect, and in particular may pre- scribe the grounds on which ballot-papers under this section are to be rejected as informal. - 114. (1) On polling day, an elector shall be entitled to vote at any prescribed polling place for the subdivision for which he is enrolled or he shall be permitted to vote at any other polling place within the Commonwealth at which a polling booth is open, under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting.
The regulations relating to absent voting may prescribe all matters (not inconsistent with this Act) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying this section into effect, and in particular may provide for -
1. the forms of absent voters’ ballot- papers ;
2. the manner in which votes are to be marked on absent voters’ ballotpapers;
3. the method of dealing with absent voters’ ballot-papers, including the scrutiny thereof, and the counting of the votes thereon; and
4. the grounds upon which absent voters’ ballot-papers are to be rejected as informal.
Absent voters’ ballot-papers containing votes and enclosed in any prescribed envelope may, if so provided by the regulations, be placed in any ballot-box in use at the polling booth at which the votes were cast, but notwithstanding anything contained in this Act a prescribed envelope containing an absent voter’s ballot-paper shall (unless the regulations otherwise provide) only be opened and the ballot-paper dealt with, as regards the scrutiny thereof and the countingof the votes thereon, by the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division for which the voter declares that he is enrolled. (4.) Nothing in the last preceding section or this section shall authorize any elector to vote more than once at any election. 115. Every person claiming to vote at any polling booth shall state his christian name and surname, and, if so desired by the presiding officer, for the purpose of identifying the name under which the vote is claimed, any other particulars necessarv to be stated in the roll.

Senator GARDINER:

– If you rule that I have repeated any argument, I shall < bow at once to your ruling; but the art of debating, as I understand it, is to repeat arguments so frequently in different words that they will reach the understanding of all my hearers.

What are the Standing Orders which will be suspended if the motion is carried? No. 192 is as follows: -

After the first reading, a future day shall be appointed for the second reading of the Bill; and the Bill shall, in the meantime, be printed.

There is no good reason why a future day should not be appointed for the second reading, and that would give us an interval of a day to consider the Bill. The Government supporters, as well as members of the Opposition, should take fine care that, on measures of first importance that are not urgent, standing order 192 is not suspended. The next are as follows: -

On the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of a Bill, the question shall be proposed, “ That this Bill be now read a second time.”

Amendments may be moved to such question by leaving out “ now “ and adding “ this day six months,” which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the Bill; or by referring the Bill to a Select Committee; or- the previous question may be moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– That standing “ order will not be suspended by the motion. The next standing order affected will be 196.

Senator GARDINER:

– No. 196 reads -

When a Bill has been reported on by a Select Committee, a future day may be fixed for the second reading.

That does not seem to affect this Bill, although, possibly, on the second reading, I may move for the appointment of a Select Committee. Standing order 212 provides -

On the motion for the adoption of the report, the Bill may, on motion, be recommitted, either in whole or in part; in which case, if amendments be made and the Bill be reported, a subsequent day shall be fixed for taking the report into consideration and moving its adoption, and the Bill, as reported with the amendments, shall in the meantime be printed; but if no amendments have been made, the report may be . at once adopted.

There will be nothing gained by the Government in suspending that standing order, because I am sure no amendment will be made in tha Bill by the Senate except what the Minister chooses to ac- cept. Standing order 213 is as follows : -

When report is finally adopted, a future day shall he fixed, on motion, for the third reacting.

If the Minister had been reasonable, the only extra time that would have been given for the consideration of this Bill would be two days - one between the first and second readings, and the other between the report stage and mo 1hird reading. I suppose it is of no use to ask the Minister to allow us those two extra days. Evidently he will not agree to it. His attitude with regard to the Bill has been altogether unreasonable, and has driven me to the extreme measures that I have taken. Through my action in reading so many of the clauses, honorable senators have now a much greater knowledge of the far-reaching importance of the Bill than they had when the Minister moved this motion, so that they will be able to vote with a clear understanding against the suspension of the Standing Orders. No reasonable member of the Senate will support the Government in this innovation. I have at least enabled honorable senators to realize the importance of this measure, and since I do not desire to prolong the debate one moment longer than is necessary, I shall make way for others who desire to exercise their rights. Before doing so, I wish again to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to give us his assurance that between the first reading and the second reading of the Bill we shall have the opportunity which the Standing Orders provides for its consideration, and that between the report stage and the third reading >of the Bill we shall also have the usual interval. If he will give me that assurance, I shall promise that the debate on the motion for the second reading, and also in Committee, will not be unduly prolonged. The Minister makes no response to my request. He is content to wield his strength in his own peculiar obstinate way. He is intolerant of the comfort, convenience, and rights of those who are opposed to him, and has no regard for the contempt into which the Senate may be dragged by reason of his action. If he were in Opposition he would forcibly protest against the very procedure that he asks u3 this morning to adopt. The whole of the Ministerial supporters are at heart opposed to this proposition, but he is forcing a reluctant following to support him in this outrage upon the Standing Orders.

This Bill is divided into eighteen parts, and it is reasonable to assume that the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders has been submitted to enable it to be applied to the coming by-election for Corangamite. The result will be that we shall have one member of the Parliament returned under an Act entirely different from that under which the remaining members were elected. That alone should be sufficient to induce the Minister to stay his hand. It may be said that the people are tired of a system under which it is possible for a man to be returned on a minority vote. It may be said that the successful candidate at the by-election for Swan represents only a minority of the voters, and that it is undesirable that we should have a recurrence of that experience in connexion with the forthcoming by-election for Corangamite. The application of this Bill to the byelection for Corangamite will mean that the successful candidate will be returned under conditions entirely different from those which operated in connexion with the recent by-election in Western Australia. For the last thirty years it has been the practice of the British Parliament to appeal to the new constituencies as soon as possible after the passing of a new Electoral Bill, so that the whole Parliament should be elected on the basis of uniform legislation. That is a very wise provision. We should hasten slowly in changing from one system to another. Bound as it is by a rigid and written Constitution, this Parliament occupies a position entirely different from that of the United Kingdom. We find it difficult to try to give effect to many desirable principles which we should like to have embodied in a measure of this kind. The Government would be well advised in withholding the passing of this legislation until the Constitution is so amended as to give us fuller and ampler powers to deal with the matters covered by the Bill. The Minister, however, makes no response to my appeal. T am not at liberty to refer to what’ happened recently in another place, but the experience of the supporters of the Government in the House of Representatives - an experience quite fresh in our minds - offers the best reason I can give in support of my plea that the Standing Orders should not be suspended.

I have occupied a good deal of time-

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - The honorable senator has not been too long. His speech will open the eyes of the people as to what is being done by the Government.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to have that expression of approval from the honorable senator, who has held office as Chairman of Committees, and so is familiar with the Standing Orders. I am glad to hear that he considers I have taken up a right attitude. The Government are simply obeying the direction of the Argus that this Bill should be pushed through. It was not until the Argus had spoken, a little more than a week ago, that the Government began to realize that it was necessary to treat this as an urgent measure. They recognised then that the master’s lash was being applied to them, and, as with highly trained horses that are prepared, without the use of the whip, to maintain an even swinging pace along good roads, the sudden application of the undeserved whip caused them to fly off at a tangent. I venture to say I am inclined to resent the readiness of the Government to go on their knees and to say, “ Yes, Mr. Leader Writer of the Argus; you are right, and we shall hurry along with the Bill, in order that what happened in Western Australia shall not occur in Victoria.” But for the Argus article the Senate would not have been asked to rush this Bill through. The struggle for position and power is always going on in politics, and the press is pleased to have in office a Government which will show” absolute readiness to obey its dictates. That is the position of the present Administration and of its supporters. The Argus said, “This Bill must be pushed through,” but gave no reason why it should be regarded as urgent. Scared at the figures of the Swan election, and finding that the policy it has dictated to the Government for months past has met with the disapproval of the electors in a quarter in which that disapproval was least expected, the Argus now advises the Government that it is necessary to pass a new Electoral Act, in the hope that, by a sudden change from one system of voting to another, which the electors are not to be given time to understand, it will be possible to stave off another defeat.

– J - Judging from the sleeping senators opposite they do not desire to have any instruction.

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

– Perhaps those sleeping senators are quite innocent of the injury of the vote they would be called upon to give if I happened to sit down now. However, we have this motion submitted by a tyrannical Minister dressed in a little brief authority; and the responsibility is that of the Ministry and not mine. I feel that in taking the course I have to-night I may have run some physical risk, but I should like to continue, and raise my voice, if only to awaken the sleeping senators opposite to some shred of decency, and some spark of a. desire, even if they are a powerful majority, to respect the rights of an alert minority. I venture to say that many of those who will support Senator Pearce on this occasion will regret it only once, and that is for the term of their natural lives. From habit or indolence - from the habit of letting the Government think, act, and work for them, and of unquestioning obedience to the will of those charged with the business of the House - those honorable senators, who are now sleeping, seem, to my mind, to lose all sense of the importance of the question we have been discussing for a few- hours. I do not know why, for the first time, there should be this proposed infringement of the rights of minorities; and perhaps the Minister will give the reason he failed to give in submitting the motion. It may be that he concluded he had only to move a motion of the kind to have it passed unquestioned by his own side. But now it must be seen by honorable senators opposite that the Government are not wisely meeting the House - that they cannot be trusted without the Standing Orders, and that they are notreally expediting business by their procedure. Senator Pearce himself must admit that he is no further ahead with the business than he would have been had he decided to stand by the Standing Orders. I know that the honorable gentleman would be reluctant to see honorable senators on this side forced into a position of prolonged opposition to this measure, with many of the provisions of which we are in accord, but some of which we think should have adequate discussion at the various stages, as the Standing Orders provide. But the Minister’s tactics would lead us to suppose that, in bis opinion, he alone knows what the measure contains, and is satisfied that it is a good thing for the Government, and, I will be charitable enough to say, for the country, and that, therefore, the rest of us should accept his opinion. “We are asked to be satisfied with one stage only for the measure; in other words, we are asked to pass all the stages in one hurried sitting. If his idea were not. such as I have suggested, he would not have insisted on a motion of the kind before us.

– But Senator Guthrie seems to miss the point that, between the 8th November, when the Bill was introduced into another place, and the 13th November, when we received it, the measure was subject to amendment. Of course, it is quite reasonable to suppose that no very great alterations would be made in a Bill of this character, consisting, as it does largely, of machinery clauses; but that is quite apart from the point I raise. I have been trying to make honorable senators understand that the Senate should have ample time to deal with a measure of this kind, and, until we are assured that that opportunity will be given, we should not be asked to agree to a suspension of the Standing Orders. Let me take as an illustration the question of proportional representation. I know that the Bill of 8th November, as it was introduced in another place, contained no reference to this subject, but I am equally well informed that a very strong party in the other House are favorable to this principle, but up to the present I have had no means of ascertaining whether they were sufficiently strong to incorporate the provisions in this measure. If, when the Minister introduced the Bill, he had stated that, the first reading having been accepted and the Bill printed, he would next day expect honorable senators to. agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to expedite the passage of the Bill, my grounds for complaint would have been removed. But that is not the position. Within five minutes of the receipt of this measure, the Minister in charge of the Senate moved the suspension of the Standing Orders. The motion has not been agreed to yet. The attitude adopted by the Government, so far from accelerating their business,- has merely added to the discomfort of honorable senators, and has really unfitted them for the work they should do, namely, concentrate their clearest intellects upon this measure, so as to insure that it will be the very best that this Parliament can devise. The Minister has missed this opportunity. And opportunities like this do not come often in the life of honorable senators, so they should not be missed. I suppose the average parliamentary life of an honorable senator does not exceed ten years. That means that once in our parliamentary life we have an opportunity of dealing with really big questions, free of the atmosphere and prejudice of party, measures upon which broad-minded men can come together in the discussion of important principles.

– The analogy I proposed to draw was that the reform we advocated was so drastic and far-reaching that the power-holding classes firmly believed it would absolutely ruin the country, but there was no attempt to suspend the Standing Orders. The Government of the day were Conservative almost beyond imagination, but they had such a proper estimation of the position of Parliament that they never tried with their majority to take advantage of the minority, although that minority was new to parliamentary procedure. Rather, they gave the fullest and freest opportunities for the most ample discussion at every stage of the Bill. Now, when most of us had begun to think that the days of parliamentary tyranny had passed for ever, and fondly hoped that w’e would never again see a Government trying to rob the people of their just rights, this proposal is sprung upon us. I use the word “ rob “ advisedly, because the Government cannot, without robbing the people of their rights, have two stages of a Bill of this nature taken on one day, and so forcibly deprive other honorable senators of the right to speak on each stage of the Bill, at the same time refusing them an opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the- Bill itself. This procedure is unreasonable and undreamt of. “We imagined that in 1918 we were more advanced than were the people of 1818, but I am beginning to think we are advancing backwards. Instead of Parliament becoming more liberal and more tolerant, growing, broadening, and widening, we have a Parliament which is not- prepared to concede to the minority the ordinary rights of parliamentary discussion. A cause that rests on force alone is doomed, and a Government that resorts to methods of conducting business which depend on continuous sittings to sap the physical strength and endurance of its opponents, will meet a day of reckoning. This Government, attempting to force the Senate to deal with all the stages of this Bill at one sitting, is doomed to hear the Bill threshed out at just as great length as if it were dealt with in the ordinary course of business as laid down by the Standing Orders. Force will always fail if resorted to in an unintelligent manner, but it must be resisted. I shall certainly feel the effects of this strenuous use of my strength to prevent this glaring innovation upon our procedure.

I do not think you have ruled, sir, that I cannot call attention to, without discussing in detail, some provisions in the Bill with which honorable senators are not acquainted. I trust I shall be in order if I quote a provision, and ask honorable senators not to take any action which will prevent its full consideration. I have read the schedules relating to the two systems of voting, and showed that if the desire of. the Government was to obtain an intelligent expression of the wishes of the people, it was quite inconsistent to have two distinct systems of voting in the same polling booth on the same day.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in repeating what he has already said. I hope he will not oblige me to take action in accordance with the powers conferred upon me by the Standing Orders.

Senator GARDINER:

– I propose to draw attention to some of the other schedules. Form A, which I shall not be in order in discussing, I shall read to bring it under the notice of honorable senators -

Writ for the ELECTION of Senators.

To the Commonwealth

Electoral Officer for the State of [here insert name of State].

Greeting.

We command you to cause election to be made according to law of [here insert number] Senators for our State of [here insert name of State] to serve in the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia from and after [here insert “ the date of their election * or “ the day of 19 “as the case may be]. And we appoint the day of 19 , at twelve o’clock noon to be the day and time before which nominations of Senators at and for the said election’ are to be made. And we appoint the day of 19 , to be the day on which the poll is to be taken in the event of the said election being contested. And we appoint the office of the Commonwealth Electoral Officer at [here insert name of town] to be the place of nomination at the said election. And we command you to indorse on this our writ the names of the Senators elected and to return it so indorsed to our Governor in and over our said State on or before the day of 19 .

I have a particular purpose in drawing attention to that schedule, because I hope honorable senators will not do me the injustice of rushing the Bill through in such a way as to prevent me from discussing that part of it at another stage. Form B provides -

Writ for the Election of a Member of the House of Representatives.

To Returning Officer for the Electoral Division of [here insert name of Division] in the State of [here insert name of State].

Greeting.

We command you that you cause election to be made according to law of one member of the House of Representatives for the Electoral Division of [here insert name of Division], in the State of [here insert name of State], to serve in the Parliament of our Commonwealth of Australia, and we appoint the following dates for the purposes of the said election: -

For nomination the day of 19 .
For taking the poll at the different polling places in the event of the election being contested the day of 19 .
For the return of the . writ on or before the day of 19 .

I should not have read these provisions if the Government had permitted the usual interval between the first and second readings. Clauses 218 and 219 are as follow: - 218. (1) Strict compliance with the forms in the Schedule shall not be required, and substantial compliance therewith shall suffice for the purposes of this Act.

The forms in the Schedule may, subject to the provisions of this Act, be altered by the regulations.
The regulations may prescribe combined forms containing the substance of any two or more forms to the intent that the combined form may be used in lieu of any of those forms.
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, and without any attestation or witnessing further than is provided for in the repealed form.
In the last preceding sub-section “repealed form” includes -
1. a form prescribed under any Act repealed by this Act and in force at the commencement of this Act; and
2. a form prescribed by any regulations made under this Act and subsequently repealed. 219. All ballot-papers, certified lists of voters, and declarations used at or in connexion with an election shall be preserved as prescribed, until the election can no longer be questioned when they shall be destroyed:

– If you, sir, had permitted me to complete what I desire to say, though I have to thank you for the patience you have exhibited, you would have learned that, although I made use of the same figure of speech, I intended to apply it to a new argument. I was intending to suggest that an honorable senator, who left the Senate last night in the belief that under the Standing Orders this Bill if presented would reach only one stage, would be disgusted to find that the Standing Orders having been suspended, not merely one, but all stages of the measure had been passed, by the time he arrived next day. I can imagine his feelings towards his colleagues if that kind of thing took place in his absence. A few years ago, we had the

– That is a matter of opinion, and I am satisfied that, in the not far distant future, the honorable senator, reviewing what has taken place to-night, will not condemn my action. He may condemn it now, but time will justify me. I am afraid that honorable senators are not aware of the provisions in this Bill dealing with petitions, and I think it well to read them. They are as follow : - 186. Every petition disputing an election or return in this part of this Act called the petition shall -

set out the facts relied on to invalidate the election or return;
contain a prayer asking for the relief the petitioner claims to be entitled to;
be signed by . a candidate at the election in dispute or by a person who was qualified to vote thereat;
be attested by two witnesses whose occupations and addresses are stated ;
be filed in the Principal Registry of the High Court or in the District Registry of that Court in the capital city of the State in which the election was held within forty days after the return of the writ; or (if the facts relied on in support of the petition are breaches by a candidate of the provisions of Part XVI. of this Act) within forty days after the filing by the candidate of the return of his electoral expenses. 187. At the time of filing the petition the petitioner shall deposit with the Principal Registrar or District Registrar (as the case may be) of the High Court the sum of Fifty pounds as security for costs. 188. No proceedings shall be had on the petition unless the requirements of the preceding sections are complied with. 189. The Chief Electoral Officer shall be entitled by leave of the Court of Disputed Returns to enter an appearance in any proceedings in which the validity of any election or return is disputed, and to he represented and heard thereon, and in such case shall be deemed to be a part)’ respondent to the petition. 190. (1) The Court of Disputed Returns shall sit as an open Court and its powers shall include the following: -
1. To adjourn;
2. To compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents;
3. To examine witnesses on oath;
4. To declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected ;
5. To declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected;
6. To declare any election absolutely void ;
7. To dismiss or uphold the petition in whole or in part;
8. To award costs;
9. To punish any contempt of its authority by fine or imprisonment.
10. The Court may exercise all or any of its powers under this section on such grounds as the Court in its discretion thinks just and. sufficient.
11. Without limiting the powers conferred by this section, it is hereby declared that the power of the Court to declare that any person who was returned as elected was not duly elected, or to declare an election absolutely void, may be exercised on the ground that illegal practices were committed in connexion with the election. 191. The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the roll to be correct, but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any roll. 192. (1) If the Court of Disputed Returns finds that a candidate has committed or has attempted to commit -bribery or undue influence, his election, if he is a successful candidate, shall be declared void.
1. No finding by the Court of Disputed Returns shall bar or* prejudice any prosecution for any illegal practice.
2. The Court of Disputed Returns shall not declare that any person returned as elected was not duly elected, or declare any election void -
on the ground of any illegal practice committed by any person other than the candidate and without his knowledge or authority; or
on the ground of any illegal practice other than bribery or corruption or attempted bribery or corruption, unless the Court is satisfied that the result of the election was likely to be affected, and that it is just that the candidate should be declared not to be duly elected or that the election should be declared void.. 193. When the Court of Disputed Returns finds that any person has committed an illegal practice, the Principal Registrar or District Registrar of the High Court shall forthwith report the finding to the Minister. 194. The Court shall be guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities, or whether the evidence before it is in accordance with the law of evidence or not. 195. No election shall be avoided on account of any delay in the declaration of nominations, the polling, or the return of the writ, or on account of the absence or error of any officer which shall not be proved to have affected the result of the election. 196. All decisions of the Court shall be final and conclusive and without appeal, and shall not be questioned in any way. 197. The Principal Registrar or District Registrar of the High Court shall forthwith after the filing of the petition forward to the Clerk of the House of the Parliament affected by the petition a copy of the petition, and after the trial of the petition shall forthwith forward to such Clerk a copy of the order of the Court. 108. (1) No party to the petition shall, except by consent of all parties, or by leave of the Court, be represented by counsel or solicitor.
1. In no case shall more than one counsel or one solicitor appear on behalf of any party. 199. The Court may award costs against an unsuccessful party to the petition. 200. If costs are awarded to any party against the petitioner, the deposit shall be applicable in payment of the sum ordered, but otherwise the deposit shall be repaid to the petitioner. 201. AH other costs awarded by the Court, including any balance above the deposit payable by the petitioner, shall be recoverable as if the order of the Court were a judgment of the High Court of Australia, and such order, certified by the Court, may be entered as a judgment of the High Court of Australia, and enforced accordingly. 202. Effect shall be given to any decision of the Court as follows: -
1. If any person returned is declared not to have been duly elected, he shall cease to be a senator or member of the House of Representatives;
2. If any person not returned is declared to have been duly elected, he - may take his seat accordingly;
3. If any election is declared absolutely void a new election shall be held.

– I am sorry that Senator Pearce objected. I do not think that even Senator Earle would care to associate himself with the call against me.

Senator Earle:

– I do, most emphatically.

SenatorFairbairn. - We called “ No “ because of the inordinate length of the honorable senator’s remarks. He can class me with my leader in this matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– The remaining sub-paragraphs of clause 137 state - (/) transmit the following information by telegram or in some other expeditious manner to the Divisional Returning Officer: -

the number of first preference votes given for each candidate; and
the total number of ballotpapers rejected as informal ;
1. seal up the parcels and indorse on each parcel a description of the contents thereof, and permit any scrutineers present, if they so desire, to countersign the indorsement; and
2. transmit the parcels to the Divisional Returning Officer with the least possible delay, together with the statement, and the copy of the writ indorsed in accordance with paragraph (d) of this sub-section.
1. Any ballot-box not opened by an assistant returning officer may be opened by the Divisional Returning Officer who shall conduct the scrutiny in the- manner aforesaid as far as applicable.
2. All ballot-papers used for voting in pursuance of -
3. Part XII. of this Act;
4. section one hundred and thirteen;
5. the regulations relating to absent voting on polling day; or

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is entitled to make extracts, but I shall expect him to connect his remarks with the motion before the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thought the explanation I gave on a former occasion would suffice. It is my desire to make honorable senators aware of the importance of the clause by reading it, because, at the present stage, I am not allowed to discuss it in detail. I just want to read now one more sub-paragraph, as follows : -

section one hundred and twenty -two of this Act; shall be examined and counted by the Divisional Returning Officer, and dealt with as prescribed by this Act or the regulations.

– The honorable senator, instead of discussing the point of order, is now dealing with the main question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - I think that the honorable senator is discussing the point of order.

Senator Gardiner:

– If the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders be carried, and the Electoral Bills rushed through all its stages, I shall not have an opportunity to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading which will enable me to do what I have indicated as desirable.

It was assented to oh 19th March, 1917, and its preamble reads -

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

Part 1. - Preliminary.

This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth Electoral (War Time) Act 1917.
This Act shaft apply in relation to elections for the Senate and general elections for the House of Representatives, held during the present war, or within six months thereafter.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902- 1911 shall be incorporated and read as one with this Act.

Yet Senator Pearce affirms that the Act is not part and parcel of our principal Electoral Act.

Senator Pearce:

– I say that the Commonwealth Electoral (War Time) Act is not a part of the . Bill which is now before us.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable gentleman also said it was. not part of our Electoral Act of 1902. But section 3 of the Commonwealth Electoral (War Time) Act distinctly affirms that it is. In my judgment, the last-mentioned Statute ought properly to be described as an Act to fake the elections. That Act continues -

This Act is divided into parts, as follows: -

Part I. - Preliminary.

Part II. - Voting by members of the Forces.

Part III. - Disqualification of certain persons.

Part IV. - Supplementary.

Now for the definitions.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator is now commencing to read an Act of Parliament. Do I understand that, under the guise of making quotations, he is entitled to read the provisions of an entire Act? I would direct attention to the fact that when this question was discussed last night, the President pointed out that it has been laid down by May that , “ extracts” mean “extracts,” and not whole documents, and that the quotation of lengthy extracts is not in order. The honorable senator is apparently intent upon reading whole Acts of Parliament which this Bill does not propose to amend.

Senator McDougall:

– I am surprised at the Minister raising such a point of order. Senator Gardiner has distinctly stated his desire to read the. Bill in order that he may understand its provisions before its first and second readings are moved. If he is to understand this measure it is necessary for him to make himself familiar with the Acts which he has been quoting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - I rule that the honorable senator is quite in order in making an incidental reference to those Acts, but he will not be in order in reading them.

Senator GARDINER:

– I merely wish to make my position clear. We are now dealing with a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to parliamentary elections. We are asked to consider it, without first being afforded an opportunity of reading its provisions. Within five minutes of the measure reaching this chamber, and after 10 o’clock last evening, the Minister moved the suspension of our Standing Orders to enable the second reading of the Bill to be moved. After a long discussion the honorable gentleman has assured me that the Bill does not pretend to consolidate the existing electoral law, and does not seek to repeal certain Acts of Parliament that are a disgrace to Australia. If the Bill does not seek to consolidate those Acts it becomes my duty to do everything in my power to see that they are consolidated. No voice can be raised in this chamber to affirm that there exists any good ground for disfranchising an honest Australian because of his name.

Senator Senior:

– The honorable senator is begging the question entirely. He does not attempt to prove his statement.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall make a quotation from the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act for the purpose of showing that my statement is perfectly true. I repeat that this Bill - unless its scope be widened - will not wipe out the iniquitous provision in the existing, law under which honest and loyal Australians are robbed of the right to vote. Part III. of that Act provides -

Subject to this. Act every naturalized British subject who was born in an enemy country shall be disqualified from voting at elections.

Then sub-section 2 of section 10 reads -

A person shall be deemed to have been born in an enemy country, within the meaning of this Act, if he was born in a country which forms part of the territory of any country with which the British Empire is now at war:

Provided that a person claiming to vote who was a natural-born citizen or subject of France, Italy, or Denmark, and who arrived in Australia before the date upon which the territory in which he was born became part of Germany or Austria (as the case may be) shall not be deemed to have been born in an enemy country, if he produces to the Presiding Officer a certificate in the prescribed form, which has not beenrevoked.

Senator Senior:

– I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether the honorable senator is in order in discussing war-time legislation upon a motion for the suspension of our Standing Orders in order that we may deal with the Electoral Bill?

– I - I rise to a point of order. I ask you, sir, whether you do not intend to follow the usual custom of adjourning for breakfast?

– No.

Then there is this provision, that -

Such recognition shall be made …. in the case of the Ministerial party, by the Prime Minister; and …. in the case of the Opposition party, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives;

If a member of the Forces votes for a party and there is no candidate recognised as aforesaid as representing that party the vote shall not be counted;

Within five days after the day of nomination the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall severally notify the Chief Electoral Officer of the names of the candidates recognised by them, and such notifications shall forthwith be pub- lished in the Gazette;

The Chief Electoral Officer shall so far as military or naval considerations will permit cause each member of the Forces who is entitled to vote under this Act to be supplied with a ballot-paper;

A member of the Forces shall not be entitled to vote more than once under this Act, nor shall he be entitled to vote under this Act and also under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1911.

Then follows section 9 : -

The Chief Electoral Officer may appoint within or beyond the Commonwealth such officers as are necessary for giving effect to the provisions of this Part.

– I am referring to the Commonwealth Electoral (Wartime) Act of 1-917, the wicked provisions of which, if not repealed, as I now advocate, will be given effect to in connexion with the election which is to take place in Victoria within the next few weeks. Nobody knows better than does Senator Senior how harshly the provisions of that ‘ Act will operate in some cases. He comes closely into touch with so many electors in the State in which more people have been disfranchised than have been dis- franchised in any other State, that he must have heard of the injustice which is inflicted, upon Australians who are the sons of British mothers and German fathers.

Senator Senior:

– I know to the contrary.

Senator GARDINER:

– If what I have said does not. apply to South Australia, it certainly applies to the other States which I visited. I know of a mos’t reputable citizen who was not only disfranchised on the occasion of the last referendum, but who, for party purposes, has been interned. He is a man who, for two years, did his best to influence the German section of the community to remain loyal, and yet he was interned on the reports of partisan Nationalists. He is still interned, and if he were resident in the electorate of Corangamite, he would not be allowed to vote at the approaching election. As a good soldier in the party to which I belong, I take my orders from it, just as does anybody else, and I am sorry that it has decided that I must not continue this debate any longer. I am very pleased to have had an opportunity of making honorable senators aware of the responsibility which they will shoulder by agreeing to suspend our Standing Orders. It will be the first time in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament that those Orders have been suspended in connexion with a measure of this character. The object of their suspension is to enable the Government to apply the Electoral Bill to the approaching election in Corangamite. They are welcome to their victory. Theirs will be a victory of the force of numbers in this Chamber, but ours will be a victory upon election day at Corangamite.

Motion (by Senator de Largie) proposed -

That the Senate do now divide.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Russell) put -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time. second reading.

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

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is largely a consolidating measure, grouping in one Bill all the electoral laws except those special Acts which stand apart, such as, for instance, the Electoral (War-time) Act and the Act which extended the life of the Senate for a few months. Those Acts are not included in the Bill because they were passed for special purposes, and some of them have ceased to operate. The Franchise Act has been embodied as a whole. The Bill makes only one addition to the Franchise Act, and that is for the purpose of enabling members of the Australian Imperial Force to vote at elections irrespective -of their age. I do not think that that concession will be greatly contested. Except for two main principles the Bill is really a reenactment and a co-ordination of existing legislation which has been scattered through many Acts. Those two principles are preferential voting for the House of Representatives, and the reintroduction of postal voting in a modified or more restricted form. The Bill as a whole is one of which the Senate may reasonably be proud. It is submitted at a time when autocracy throughout the world is falling, and I believe that, despite small differences of opinion upon some of the principles involved, honorable senators will agree that no better or freer electoral law has ever been introduced in any Parliament in the world. I again affirm that the Bill, apart from co-ordinating existing laws, embraces only two new principles, namely, a genuine attempt to secure majority rule, at any rate so far as the House of Representatives is concerned, and an honest endeavour through the postal vote to extend the franchise to people who can vote by no other discovered means.

In regard to preferential voting, Senator Gardiner asked what will happen in the event of only two candidates contesting a seat. In that case all that will be required of the elector will be to mark the numeral or a simple cross against the preferred candidate; any other indication of preference will not be necessary. But when more than two candidates offer themselves the usual and! well understood! conditions of preferential voting will operate. The candidate who receives the smallest number of first preference votes will drop out and the second preferences on the ballot-papers marked in his favour will be distributed amongst the other candidates. This operation will continue until one candidate secures an absolute majority. Any candidate who secures an absolute majority on the first count will be declared elected. In the event of two candidates at the bottom of the poll tieing for last position in respect of first preference votes the chief returning officer will give a casting vote in the same way as he does when a tie takes place in an election to-day. No Democratcan seriously oppose the right of the majority to rule. Upon that principle all Democracy is based, and although the majority may at times make mistakes they cannot do injury to the country without injuring themselves. Therefore, a system which insnrres -majority rule is justified if only as a protective measure. I do not wish to associate the machinery of Democracy with liberty. It is quite possible for the two to be distinct and divergent at times. There are occasions when even Democracy can be tyrannical towards itself and towards the common people, but, nevertheless majority rule is the greatest popular safeguard that has been discovered. The Bill represents a genuine attempt to make that principle effective. I make no apology for the introduction of the preferential voting system, because all Democratic bodies have accepted the principle of majority rule. I do not say that it is a perfect, system ; like every human device, it is subject to abuses. I have known cases in which the preferential system, instead of voting men up has voted them down, ‘but at the same time it is not capable of as grave abuses as take place under the present system. Therefore, this method should be accepted as a means to insure majority rule until a better method is devised.

In regard to postal voting, I am not unmindful of the fact that there has been a good deal of criticism in regard to its operation in the past. I ask honorable senators to dissociate the provisions in this Bill from the previous system under which a person had only to believe that he would be five miles away from a booth on polling day to become entitled to a postal vote. In the case’ of others it was necessary for them only to affirm that they would be sick on polling day. Abuses resulted, especially in connexion with women electors. Another doubtful provision in the old system of postal voting was that the elector had to hand over his vote to an authorized witness, and, although I am not prepared to mention instances, it has been said that on occasions the authorized witness had a convenient memory and forgot to post the vote. The Bill now before the Senate provides that an elector must be definitely more than fifteen miles from a polling booth on election day before he shall be permitted to vote by post. At a later stage I intend to move an amendment to reduce that distance to ten miles. The postal vote is given also to infirm persons, those who are physically incapable of going to polling booths, those who are sick, and those who are inmates of hospitals, and there is a special provision to meet the circumstances of females in connexion with approaching maternity. All persons voting under this provision must be genuinely ill or physically incapable of going to the polling booth. The list of authorized witnesses is as wide as we can safely make it, but power is given to extend by regulation the list throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. Always there have been risks in connexion with postal voting, and I am not prepared to say that there will be none under the system now proposed, but I believe that it has been so effectively safeguarded that the danger is reduced to a minimum.

Senator Guy:

– Senator Pearce said it was impossible to guard against risk.

Senator RUSSELL:

-I am not prepared to sav that.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator voted to repeal the old postal voting provisions.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I voted against their repeal. I agree that plenty of abuses took place under that system, but, knowing the convenience it was to women and invalids and to those who were living in remote parts from which it was impossible for them to reach a booth, I believed that democracy should extend the franchise so that it would be possible for every individual in the community to vote, and I refused then, as I refuse now, to believe that it is. not possible for Parliament to devise an effective, safe, and honest system of postal voting.

Under the most perfect system of electoral enrolment there are always clerical errors when a Department is dealing with hundreds of thousands of names, and I know of nothing more annoying to a man who has taken the necessary steps to secure enrolment than to find, when he presents himself at the polling booth, that his name is not on the roll. The percentage of such cases is not great, but these omissions are a real grievance to men who, through no fault of their own, are disfranchised. The Bill provides that any man who has taken the necessary steps to secure enrolment, no matter what subsequent mistake is made by the electoral officers, or the printer, or anybody else, shall, on making a declaration that he has filled in his enrolment card and lived in the electorate for one month, be allowed to vote in the same way as an absent voter does now. This provision will prevent people being deprived of their vote simply because their names have been omitted from the roll through inadvertence or through a rush of work in the Electoral Office. No principle is involved in the other provisions of the Bill. The measure is a good clean Democratic one, which could not be improved from any knowledge ‘ we possess of electoral systems in force in other parts of the world.

Senator Pratten:

– What do the Government intend to do with the different marking of the Senate and House of Representatives ballot-papers?

Senator RUSSELL:

– That matter is now being considered by the Government, and will probably be dealt with in a separate Bill. If possible, an effort will be made to avoid the different marking of the ballot-papers, but at the present stage I cannot make a more definite statement.

Motion (by Senator McDougall) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– There is only one question of keener interest than is the amendment of our electoral law, and that other is the matter of land values taxation. The amendment of our electoral laws has engaged the attention of the Commonwealth Parliament on eleven occasions. This latest effort on the part of the Government contains one exceptionally objectionable feature, namely, the restoration of the postal vote, which, so far as I know, is not in operation in any single State.

Senator Bakhap:

– That is not correct.

Senator GRANT:

– It is not even in operation in local government elections.

Senator Bakhap:

– Yes, it is.

Senator GRANT:

– Then it must be in operation in Tasmania only, where every visitor to the State who passes over the Launceston wharf has to pay «a tax of 2s. The provision restoring the postal vote is clause 85, which reads as follows : - 85. (1) An elector who-

will not throughout the hours of polling on polling day be within 15 miles by the nearest practicable route of any polling booth open in the Commonwealth for the purposes of an election; or
will throughout the hours of polling on polling day be travelling under conditions which will preclude him from attending at any polling booth to vote; or
is seriously ill or infirm, and by reason of such illness or infirmity will be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, or, in the case of a woman, will by approaching maternity be precluded from attending at any polling booth to vote, may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.
1. The application must contain a declaration by the elector setting out the grounds upon which he applies for the postal vote certificate and’ postal ballot-paper, and may be in the prescribed form, and must be signed by the elector in his own handwriting in the presence of an authorized witness, and must be made and sent, after the issue of the wi-it for the election and before the polling day for the election, to the Divisional Returning Officer for the division for which the elector is enrolled, or to some. other Divisional Returning Officer if the elector has reason to believe that the application may not, in the ordinary course of post, reach the Divisional Returning Officer for the division for which he is enrolled so as to enable him to receive a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper from that officer in time to permit of the elector voting at the election.
2. An elector shall not make, and a person shall not induce an elector to make, any false statement in an application for a postal vote “certificate and postal ballot-paper, or in the declaration contained in such application.

Penalty: Fifty pounds, or imprisonment for one month.

Sub-clause 2 is particularly objectionable, and it will be impossible in thousands of cases for prospective voters to take the steps necessary to secure noi only ballotpapers, but also authorized witnesses, and they will be very much handicapped compared with others, who, because of their financial position, and by means of the conveniences at their disposal, may get to polling booths. The Act of 1911 contains a provision for voting by post, but after a trial it was found to be so unsatisfactory that the Commonwealth Parliament, I believe almost unanimously, repealed it. The present Government, in trying to restore this discredited system of voting, are acting very wrongly, because at the time the system was in operation the disclosures which were made were of no credit to any one. I have not copies of the evidence which was taken, and which resulted in this Parliament deliberately omitting the provision dealing with postal voting, but I know that it was such that the condemnation of this method of voting was almost universal. I am disappointed at the present- Government’s proposal to enforce this objectionable system once more upon the people. In individual cases it may be a hardship to be deprived of the right to vote, and if I were so unwell as to be unable to go to the polling booth I would be considerably annoyed if I were robbed of my vote; but, as a general rule, the person who is ill is not very much concerned about election matters. When people are at death’s door it is no time to worry them with the relative merits of political parties; but if the Government are determined that voting facilities should be provided for the inmates of hospitals, I would not oppose any effort which would attain that object without the risk of fraud. If Returning Officers were appointed to visit hospitals accompanied by scrutineers from both sides, possibly a considerable number of votes could be secured, but it is quite unfair to worry people who are ill with matters appertaining to elections. I feel quite certain that in the near future we shall have a repetition of the disgraceful disclosures we have had in the past in regard to this method of voting, and that we shall take the first opportunity of repealing this clause. The Minister has given notice of an amendment to reduce the mileage to 10 miles, which will render the provision even more objectionable. Any system of voting which permits of ballot-papers leaving the polling booth lends itself to unfair practices, and it is to be regretted the Government have decided to insert such a provision in the Bill. At present men who are going to sea are entitled to vote after the issue of a writ and before polling day. That enables nearly all seafaring men to exercise the franchise; but that method of voting, while it permits the vote to be cast before election day, has this great advantage, namely, that each individual voter must present himself in person in order to exercise his franchise. Thus the objectionable practices which in the past have disgraced postal ‘voting are absent.

Another clause, which, I understand, is a new one, has to do with fixing the age of persons qualified to vote. I have held the opinion for years that the age of twenty-one is altogether too old in this respect. In Australia almost every boy is earning his own living before he is eighteen. Frequently he is doing the work of a man by that time. Thousands of our troops enlisted before they were eighteen, or during their nineteenth year. But this Bill does not provide for the enfranchisement of any person under twenty -one.

Senator Russell:

– The honorable senator is not correct. There is such a provision in the Bill, and I have also, an amendment which will make the provision more complete. It will include all soldiers of all ages.

Senator Guy:

– Even of seventeen?

Senator Russell:

– That is so.

Senator GRANT:

– . But that is intended to apply only for a limited period.

Senator Russell:

– For three years after the war, by which time all members of the Forces who were under twentyone will have become entitled to vote in the ordinary course.

Senator GRANT:

– But there are many thousands of others who should also be given the right to vote. In Committee I shall endeavour to extend the privilege so that all persons of eighteen years and over may exercise the franchise.

Hitherto considerable trouble has occurred in respect to objections taken to names on the roll. Clause 52, as I have it before me in the reprint showing the proposed amendments, reads as follows: -

Any name on a roll may he objected to by objection in writing lodged with or made by the Divisional Returning Officer:

Provided that a sum of 5s. shall be deposited in respect of each objection lodged . by any person other than an officer, to be forfeited to the King if the objection is held by the Divisional Returning Officer to be frivolous.

Senator Needham:

– I refuse to permit you, sir, to put words into my mouth which I did not use. I did not say that the honorable senator was a dirty dog, and I will not have you impute that to me. And I call upon you to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order ! I again call upon Senator Needham to withdraw.

Senator Needham:

– I will not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Then I name the honorable senator for disobedience to the Chair.

Senator Needham:

– I did not call any honorable senators dirty dogs.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator distinctly said “to watch you dogs,” and I did not see fit to take notice of that; but he then said “ you dirty dogs.”

Senator Needham:

– I did not say “you. dirty dogs”, to the honorable senator.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - As the honorable senator will not withdraw his expression I name him for disobedience to the Chair.

Senator Needham:

– For disobedience to the Chair, I withdraw.

Senator GRANT:

– I protest against the action of the Government in seeking to force through the Senate a new Electoral Act, when so many of Australia’s adults - our fighting men - are still abroad. This is a measure in regard to which, in the main, very little objection need be urged. The objections which might well be raised at this stage are chiefly on account of the inopportune time at which the Bill is submitted. But I regret that no provision appears to have been made for our men abroad to exercise their franchise. I trust that steps will be taken during the Committee stage to remedy that defect.

In this measure the Government propose to introduce a new system of voting for the House of Representatives. It is not quite clear from the Ministerial statements so far. made in the Senate what will constitute an informal vote. I wish to be informed whether, in the event of a person exercising only his or her first preference, that vote will be regarded as formal. I would like to know, also, whether a vote .will be deemed informal if a person places a cross by the side of the name of a candidate under the preferential system. Altogether, for the reasons I have given, I shall vote against the measure.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I ask Senator Russell, the Minister now in charge of the Senate, if he will agree to an adjournment of the debate until 3 o’clock this afternoon?

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator was not here all night.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I am glad that I was not. I saw no reason for remaining. My request is made in the interest of those who were here, in the interest of the Hansard staff, and in the interest of the officials of the Senate. If the Minister accedes to my request, it may relieve the present tension, which should not exist in a deliberative assembly.

Senator Russell:

– I cannot do anything in the matter. Though desirous of getting to bed, I do not wish for a broken rest.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Then I must address myself directly to the Bill, which is, perhaps, the most important measure that has been submitted to the Senate during this Parliament. I do this after the refreshment of a night’s sleep. With the occurrences of the past twelve hours, I have no sympathy. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), a little after 10 o’clock last night, made to the Government what I considered a fair offer. He promised that if the moving of the second reading of the Electoral Bill were postponed until to-day, the consideration of the measure should proceed with reasonable expedition, and that the time lost by the postponement would be thereby made up. That offer the Government declined, and, as a consequence, there has been an exhibition which is not creditable to the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - The honorable senator may not reflect on the proceedings of the Senate.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Whoever may have been at fault, I have no sympathy with what has occurred. The members of the Hansard staff have been at work for over twenty-four hours continuously, and so have the officials of the Senate; and honorable senators, who have not been in bed for nearly thirty hours, are not in a fit and proper condition to discuss the measure now before the Senate. Primitive passions have been aroused. The irresistible has met the immovable, and an atmosphere has been created in which the discussion should not be continued. Yet, as this is the only opportunity which honorable senators will have for speaking to the measure generally, I must perforce avail myself of it. All interest in the Bill seems to have evaporated. No one seems to care what may happen, so long as he may get to sleep at the earliest moment.

– I was elected to form one of a body prepared to drop all party considerations to secure united action for the winning of the war, and I’ have done nothing since to falsify my election pledges. During my last candidature for the Senate, and during my previous candidature, I pledged myself also to support electoral reform, and I intend to carry out my pledges so far as I may be able to do so. I extremely regret that on the morning of a victorious peace there should have been exhibited in this Chamber a spirit of party altogether contrary to the best interests of Australia, because this has prevented the calm consideration of a measure of grave importance. When I became a member of the Senate I was gratified to find that .the partv r rancour which I had been led to believe was extreme in previous Parliaments no longer existed, having been repressed by the war, and I regret the more that it has again broken out.

All electoral reform affects the basis on which Democracy is founded. Electoral legislation is the root from which Democracies must grow. Our representative system came to us from the traditions of the Mother Country, modified and extended by the complex requirements of modern society, but at its best it is yet a very Crude system. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) has, rightly or wrongly, accused’ the Government of endeavouring to force through this Bill in order that some of its provisions may be applied to the election that is to be held in the Corangamite Division for the choosing of a member to replace the late lamented Mr. Manifold, and to save the seat for the Nationalist party. That charge contains the admission that on a straight-out vote a majority of the electors of Corangamite would return a Nationalist candidate. - In the present state of political parties in the other House, it matters not greatly whether the candidate returned is a Nationalist or a Labour member, but the temper in which honorable senators discuss proposals striking at the root of our representative system matters very much indeed. What will be the result of the occurrences of the past twelve hours, of which the outstanding feature was the marvellous physical endurance of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) ? The general public will not be fully informed of the circumstances. Throughout the length and breadth of Australia the newspapers will dwell on Senator Gardiner’s feat, and the people will think that he would not have shown so much tenacity of purpose had he not on some matter of principle been engaged in protecting the rights of Australian Democracy. When I entered the chamber this morning, the first remark that I heard concerned the marvellous endurance of the honorable senator. That is what will be blazoned all over Australia to-day and to-morrow, and the public will neither care for, nor remember, the importance of the occasion. I do not think that this Bill is of sufficient importance to warrant the Government in endeavouring to get a twenty-four hours’ lead upon it, in view of the physical and mental tension which have been exhibited in this chamber, and which have practically placed a majority of honorable senators horn de combat.

Senator Russell:

– Does the honorable senator know that the Government have an evil motive in seeking to expedite the passing of this Bill?

Senator PRATTEN:

– No. I am merely repeating the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. But when the suspension of the Standing Orders was moved after 10 o’clock last night by the Minister for Defence, he assigned no reason whatever for his action. Upon several occasions during the present session, Ministers have moved the suspension of our Standing Orders to expedite the passing of some Bill of an admittedly urgent character. I do not think that any’ exception can be taken to the adoption of that course in such circumstances. Nobody- will seriously object to expediting;, for example, the passing of a Supply Bill when payments are about to fall due to members of our Public Service. But I do not think the Government are paying that respect to honorable senators to which they are entitled.

Senator Russell:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the Government are capable of determining the urgency or otherwise of their own measures? We are now within about five weeks of Christmas.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I thank the Vice-President of the Executive Council for his interjection, because it recalls to my mind at least one occasion in this Chamber upon which a Bill was declared to be of an urgent character and yet the following week the Senate was obliged to adjourn because it had no business to transact. I do not think that the leaders of the Government here are paying that respect to honorable senators to which the latter are entitled when they so frequently interfere with the arrangement of the Business Paper. As a matter of fact, it very often happens that honorable senators do not know what business is to claim their attention until a Minister rises and makes an announcement. In this connexion I would remind Ministers that there is a limit to our patience, and that some respect should be paid to the generally loyal support which they are receiving.

Upon the question of electoral reform, I am very pleased that the Ministry have brought forward a Bill which is designed to improve the present position. I believe that preferential voting is a reform in the right direction, but I do not think it is a reform which, in the years to come, a Democracy will regard as complete. Nevertheless, it will constitute a great improvement upon our existing methods of voting. To some extent it will weaken the power of the party machine, prevent the election of an unpopular candidate, and confer an enlarged freedom of choice in connexion with the election of representatives for single-member constituencies. Preferential voting provides for safeguarding the rights of majorities, but in my judgment no electoral system will be complete which does not also safeguard the rights of large minorities. I believe that there is a considerable section of the people of Australia who regard the question of electoral reform as being of a more pressing character - after war problems have been settled - than is any other question. In New South Wales there is a large body of much respected opinion upon both sides of politics, which believes that the time for electoral reform has now come. The question of proportional representation is making great headway. Not only is it moving in Australia, but it is moving in more conservative England, and I believe that, if not during the life of the present Parliament, certainly in the not distant future, the electors of Australia will demand that a complete reform shall be made of our electoral laws so as to provide, as far as possible, for that mathematical representation which they desire.

Senator Senior:

– Is the honorable senator quite sure that it will produce a mathematical representation ?

Senator PRATTEN:

– A little later, I shall endeavour to prove that so far as the system has been tested in one of the States and in other countries, a mathematical representation has been achieved under the proportional system of voting.

Senator Guy:

– At the last State election in Tasmania the party whose candidates polled the lowest number of votes secured the majority of the representatives.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I shall endeavour to show the honorable senator another side of the picture in due course.

Senator Guy:

– What I have stated is a fact.

Senator Keating:

– Unfortunately for the statement, it is not a fact.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I think that the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) admirably summarized the provisions of the Bill, and, in passing, I wish also to congratulate the Vice-President of the Executive Council upon his clear enunciation and summary of the principles of this voluminous measure. The Minister for Home and Territories said -

In effect, this Bill is to provide a standard of uniformity with the States, to restore with modifications of its scope greater safeguards for postal voting, to establish preferential voting for the House of Representatives, to retain absent voting on polling day throughout the (Commonwealth and before polling day with extensions, voting before registrars, to facilit?te and make more effective registration, to provide certain powers to correct the rolls after the issue of the writ by the removal or reinstatement of names, and to protect electors against errors by officers, to give statutory sanction to some points of present procedure such as in telegraphing the issue and contents of writs, and to reduce the penalties in some cases - such as offences in relation to advertisements - and so forth.

I think that is a fair and reasonable summary of the objects of the Bill, and I do not see that any reasonable opposition can be urged to the provisions which are contained in the amendments that have been made to the measure in its original form. I am glad that the Government have introduced the Bill, and I am specially pleased that it will provide for a standard of uniformity with the States in that it will unify at least one of the duplications which now take place as between the States and the Commonwealth.

I need not say again how much I approve of the principle of preferential voting. There is no method of voting which will insure majority rule in single member constituencies, save the numerical preference which is provided in this mea sure. I do not think it can be argued with any semblance of reason that the Government should be expected to immediately redistribute the constituencies constituting the other branch of the Legislature so as to permit of proportional representation being adopted, in view of the very many urgent war problems which lie ahead of usr and in view also of the pressing matters claiming attention by reason of the advent of peace. Proportional representation cannot, be applied to singlemember constituencies, and consequently the Government, in bringing forward a Bill to provide for preferential voting, have done the next best thing possible. At all events, the measure will safeguard the rights of a majority of the electors in single-member constituencies, and the country will be spared the possibility of representatives being elected upon a minority vote.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What is to prevent our having five-barrelled constituencies?

Senator PRATTEN:

The reform of the Senate is a question altogether apart from the method of voting for it. A good deal of thought has been given even to this point. Senator Thomas by an interjection has indicated what is running through his mind, that the State of New South Wales, with a population of nearly 2,000,000, has no greater representation in this Chamber than the State of Tasmania.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– I ask the honorable senator not to pursue that line of argument. It is not relevant to the Bill.

Senator PRATTEN:

– 1 do not wish to enlarge upon the point. I am merely dealing with it in relation to the establishment of proportional voting for the Senate. Under the present method of electing senators it is quite possible that at the next election for this Chamber there may be a continuing Nationalist wave. The whole eighteen senators returned may represent the National party. Thus there would be thirty-six Nationalists in the Senate and no representatives of the Official Labour party. That is the risk we run under the present method of election, and if such a situation arose this Chamber would be the laughing-stock of the community.

Senator Needham:

– Is it not a situation devoutly to be wished for by the honorable senator?

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator PRATTEN:

– I have said what I think of what occurred last night, and I hope that I have not added fuel to the flame. I have endeavoured to bring back the minds of honorable senators to the Bill. I have urged, to the best of my ability, the adoption by the Senate of the principle of proportional representation. I have shown how that long-needed reform can be obtained by two small amendments. At every election I have pledged myself to secure proportional representation, and some of the members of this Government are similarly pledged. I see no objection to that system of voting, and I urge the Government, if it is not prepared to allow this Bill to be amended, to promise to give careful consideration to the reform before the next election, so that in the future there may not be a danger of the Senate being in the ill-balanced condition of the past, and that the method of voting may be fairer.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- I ask the Leader of the House if he will allow the debate to be adjourned over the luncheon hour.

Senator Millen:

– I urge the honorable senator to make the most of the few minutes between now and the usual hour for the luncheon adjournment.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Will the honorable senator give me permission to resume after the adjournment?

Senator Millen:

– That does not rest in my hands. If it did, I might be disposed to refuse the request.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Then I move-

That the debate be adjourned.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator’s remarks seem to me not to be pertinent or relevant to the Bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– A writ having been issued for the election on the 14th December of a member to serve for the

Division of Corangamite, I see no reason why senators should be subjected to a test of endurance in order to pass this Bill so that the method of preferential voting may apply at that election. No doubt, our electoral laws are in need of amendment and consolidation, but I do not think that this is the time to amend and consolidate them. At the present time there are more than 100,000 of our citizens who are absent from Australia who cannot vote upon the question of whether or not this Rill should become law.

Senator Millen:

– May I interpose to point out that no provision is made in our Sessional Orders for a suspension of the sitting of the Senate for luncheon purposes, except on Friday? In the absence of a standing . order specifically dealing with the matter, I suggest to you, sir, that it will probably meet the convenience of honorable senators if you will suspend the present sitting until half past two o’clock. 1

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– The Minister for Repatriation is quite right in saying that there is no sessional order bearing upon the suspension of a sitting of the Senate for luncheon, except on Fridays. In the circumstances, if there be no objection on the part of honorable senators, I shall suspend the present sitting until 2.30 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 till 2.80 p.m. (Thursday).

Senator NEEDHAM:

– When the sitting was suspended I was referring to the fact that at the present time more than 100,000. of our citizens are absent from this country. It is not right that we should amend the electoral law during their absence. Before any drastic alterations are made in existing electoral methods, the opinion of the electors themselves upon those alterations should be obtained. Had the Government made electoral reform a plank of their platform at the next election, by that time the men who have boon fighting our battles overseas would have returned, and would have been afforded an opportunity of voting upon this question.’ That is my reply to those who urge that, even if these men were in Australia, they would not be permitted a chance of voting upon it. It cannot be claimed by any reasonable person that this Bill has received that amount of consideration to which it is entitled. In another branch of the Legislature I know that a certain procedure has been adopted to secure the limitation of debate. Hitherto it has been tho boast of the Senate that our debates here cannot be guillotined. I have discovered, however, during the past twenty-four hours, that there is another method by which discussion may be shortened, namely, by physical exhaustion, and I candidly acknowledge that I have just about reached that stage. I have also learned that we have a standing order which sanctions the application of the “gag.” I refer to the standing order which allows an honorable senator to move, “ That the Senate do now divide,” immediately any honorable senator has concluded his speech.

– I am speaking of the Hughes-Cook Government, of which Senator Guthrie was a supporter. I understand that it will be convenient to the Leader of the Government in this Chamber if I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 2.37 p.m. (Thursday) .

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 November 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19181113_senate_7_86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 November 1918

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL

EXCISE BILL

QUESTION

INTERNEES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator GARDINER:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

PAPERS

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Arsenal Railway Report

QUESTION

CURTAILMENT OF RACING

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

RECORD OF WAR SERVICES

Senator SHANNON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:NAT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Aus tralia

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Lynch:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Senior:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator de Largie:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Barnes:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator Millen:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator de Largie:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

Senator Gardiner:

Senate
13 November 1918

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator SHANNON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia