Permalink
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
9122 lines (9121 sloc) 548 KB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1903-08-13</date>
<parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House ofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1903-08-13</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know from the Attorney-General whether, since those whose interests are deeply affected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill are now considering the details of the measure, he will promiso definitely that no division shall be taken upon its second reading until at least next week? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>BALLAARAT, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Attorney-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although I am anxious to expedite the passing of the measure, I assure the honorable and learned member that there will be no division before next Tuesday. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>KADINA POST-OFFICE</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<electorate>MARANOA, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PAGE, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr PAGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know from the Postmaster-General if the petitions which he told me, on 4th August, had not yet reached his Department, have got there, and if so, whether tenders have been called for the construction of the Kadina Post-office ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZT</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>Free Trade</party>
<role>Postmaster-General</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FYSH, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP FYSH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Owing to my temporary absence from Melbourne, I have not yet been informed. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<electorate>HERBERT, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAMFORD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAMFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- As it appears from this morning&#39;s <inline font-style="italic">Argus</inline> that the three carpenters who arrived in Australia by the steamer <inline font-style="italic">Gera</inline> have been allowed to land, I ask the Prime Minister what special skill they possess, and what are the conditions of the contract by which they are bound ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate>HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Sir EDMUND BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although I have not the papers with me - because I did not know this morning that the honorable member intended to ask the question - I am able to say that one of the three men produced a written contract - and the other two admitted that they were bound by similar contracts - under which he was to receive a wage of &#163;1 2 10s. a month, together with travelling expenses; and all three stated that they would be provided with board and lodging. The contract also provides that they are to have the premium upon half of an insurance of &#163;500 upon . each of their lives. They have been engaged in connexion with the erection of machinery for a special process of treating ores at the Lancelot mine, at Herberton, North Queensland, and the inquiries which I have made satisfy me that they are persons of skill who are required in Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>AGENTS-GENERAL AND PREFERENTIAL TRADE</title>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Prime Minister awarethat the Agents-General of the States in London are now engaged in an almost fierce controversy upon the question of preferential trade? Will the right honorable and learned gentleman protest to the States against this meddling interference upon the part of their officers, and prevent the constant misrepresentation of the public opinion of the Commonwealth? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Sir EDMUND BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although I have not had time to consider the question, I would point out that the Agents-General of the States are officers occupying a high position under the Governments of the States, and as representative citizens are necessarily interested in the question of preferential trade. It does not seem to me, therefore, that the expression of their opinions on the subject is a sufficient reason for provoking a dispute with the Governments which they represent, which might lead to considerable friction, without any very beneficial result. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the Prime Minister approve of what the AgentsGeneral are doing? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3546</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Sir EDMUND BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be hard to say that I disapprove. I think that they are entitled to express their opinions, either for or against preferential trade. Although the Agents-General are temporarily residing in England, they are prominent citizens of the Commonwealth, and as such are entitled to express their opinions upon a subject like this. It must, of course, always be remembered that opinions so expressed have no official weight, and if such weight is given to them it is wrongly sogiven, because they in no sense represent the Commonwealth as an entity. But having regard to the fact that the expression of their opinions must be taken tobe purely the expression of their personal views, I do not think that there is any comment to make on their action. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>leave of absence</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">Resolved</inline>(on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Reid)</inline> - </para>
<quote>
<para>That leave of absence for one month be granted to the right honorable member for Tasmania, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Edward</inline> Braddon, on the ground of ill-health. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPER</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLERK, The</name>
<name role="display">The Clerk</name>
</talker>
<para>- Assistant laid upon the table the following paper : - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Customs Prosecutions : Return to orders of the House, dated 12th and 20th June, 1903. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KY8</name.id>
<electorate>WIMMERA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PHILLIPS, Pharez</name>
<name role="display">Mr PHILLIPS</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1">
<para>. Whether he is aware that the proposals of the South African Customs Union Convention, which have been adopted by the Natal, Rhodesia, Transvaal Colony, Orange River Colony, and Cape Colony Legislatures, come into operation on the loth instant? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>As this Convention favours, to the extent of 25 per cent., any British colony which reciprocates, will hetake the necessary steps to reciprocate, so that the expanding trade of the Commonwealth with South Africa will not suffer? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Sir EDMUND BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>I believe that isso. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>This question must be considered in its relation to the whole subject of reciprocal preferential trade, on which a statement of ministerial intentions will be made in due course. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>REPORT OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNJ</name.id>
<electorate>MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MAUGER, Samuel</name>
<name role="display">Mr MAUGER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in yesterday&#39;s <inline font-style="italic">Argus,</inline> purporting to be a portion of the report of the General Officer Commanding: - &#34;Major-General <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Edward</inline> Hutton has come to one very interesting conclusion respecting Federal legislation. In a report recently prepared he says : - &#39; The development of the national instinct, and the increase of commercial prosperity, tend to show that Australia in the near future is destined to play a leading part in the Pacific. Itcan, moreover; hardly be supposed that Australians desire to repudiate their responsibilities as a portion of the British Empire in regard to co-operation for defence, more especially of their fellowcountrymen in New Zealand. It will not, I hope, be considered out of place to observe that recent Commonwealth legislation points distinctly to the establishment of the Monroe doctrine in Australasian waters, and to the enforcement of the principle that the future population of Australia is to consist only of certain defined races.&#39;&#34; </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If he thinks the inferences contained therein are justifiable and should emanate from such a quarter? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009LR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARTON, Edmund</name>
<name role="display">Sir EDMUND BARTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>I have seen the paragraph mentioned. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The expressions may be considered somewhat questionable, but I do not think them sufficiently so to necessitate my pronouncing any specific censure on the General Officer Commanding. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>LETTER-CARRIERS&#39; OVERCOATS</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWG</name.id>
<electorate>PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOWLER, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr FOWLER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the PostmasterGeneral, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that the letter-carriers in Western Australia are not provided by the Government with overcoats ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Do the letter-carriers in other States receive overcoats as part of their uniform ? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Will the Postmaster-General see that the letter-carriers of Western Australia are at once placed on an equality with those of other States in this respect? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Free Trade</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FYSH, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP FYSH</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>The letter-carriers in Western Australia have notyet been provided with overcoats by the Government, but action was taken some time since with a view to placing all letter-carriers in the Commonwealth on the same footing in this respect. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Inquiry is proceeding as to the practice in all the States as to providing overcoats or waterproofs for the letter-carriers. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>The Postmaster-General on the conclusion of the inquiry will see that as far as possible all letter-carriers are placed on an equality in the matter of waterproofs or overcoats. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA</title>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3547</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate>Hume</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Trade and Customs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That this House approves of the proposed distribution of the State of South Australia into seven divisions, named Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Angas, Barker, Chamberlain, East Torrens, and Flinders, and shown on the maps laid upon the table of the House of Representatives on the 7th July last. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I intend to ask the House to deal with the proposed distribution of the States into electoral divisions in the order in which the subject has been reported upon by the Commissioners for the States, and their reports laid upon the table of the House. The first proposed distribution to be completed and laid before honorable members was that of the State of South Australia. It will be remembered that when this Parliament was elected, the States of South Australia and Tasmania were not divided into electoral divisions, and, therefore, are now in a somewhat different position from the remaining States. Personally I do not know much of the divisions proposed for South Australia, but I have made all the inquiries I possibly could, and I have had before me, of course, the Commissioner&#39;s report. He has named the various electorates, and I am informed that there is some desire to alter the names, or some of them. I do not suppose that there will be any great objection to any amendments which may be suggested by representatives of South Australia who may strongly desire an alteration in the case of any particular electorate. I think I arn expressing the opinion of those who are acquainted, with the proposed divisions when I say that there is no serious objection to be taken to them. The number of the electors in each electorate is as follows : - In the electorate of Adelaide 23,518, Port Adelaide 23,563, East Torrens 26,727, Barker 21,791, Angas 23,593, Chamberlain 23,761, and Flinders 22,235. In the case of EastTorrens and Chamberlain there is a certain number above the quota. In East Torrens the number is 3,129, and in Chamberlain 163. The number in Adelaide is 80 below the quota ; in Port Adelaide, 35 ; Barker, 1,807 ; Angas, 5; and Flinders, 1,363. As I have explained there does not seem to be much objection taken to the provisions proposed, and I have, therefore, to move that they be accepted. This action is taken under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Commissioners were appointed under the provisions of that statute. At the time the Bill was first introduced it was proposed that there should be three Commissioners, but objection was raised to that proposal in this House, and ultimately a compromise, as it may, perhaps, be called, was agreed to, and it was decided to have one Commissioner instead of three. I personally, and I think the Ministry as a whole, were in favour of having three Commissioners, but, strong objections having been raised to the proposal, it was decided that one Commissioner only should be appointed for each State. The officer in South Australia was Commissioner Boothby, a gentleman who, so far as I can ascertain, held the confidence of all the representatives of that State, and I think also of its people. Of course I obtained my information concerning him through the representatives of the State. I regret to say that that gentleman has died since he completed hia task. I think we may all regret the fact, and I have already paid a tribute to his memory so far as I could, because I ascertained that he was a man highly respected by every one, and that that is why his appointment gavesuch universal satisfaction. The Commissioner in each State was called upon to carry out the provisions of sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It will be noticed that under these sections it was necessary, after making the divisions, that thirty days&#39; notice should be given with a view to objections being raised. If, at the expiration of that time, any objections were raised sufficiently serious to require an alteration of the divisions proposed, the Commissioner would have an opportunity of altering them. In the case of South Australia, no alteration was proposed up to the end of thethirty days. It will be found that section 21 of the Act says - </para>
<quote>
<para>If both Houses of 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 Federal divisions for the State in which they are situated. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">If either House of the Parliament passesa resolution disapproving of any proposed distribution, or negatives a motion for the approval of any proposed distribution, the Minister may direct the Commissioner to propose a fresh distribution of the State into divisions. The proceedings are, I think, entirely in the hands of the Government after the matter is dealt with by the House. I do not think there is any necessity to speak at greater length upon this motion. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3548</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate>East Sydney</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr REID</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have much pleasure in supporting the motion of the Minister for Trade and Customs. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3548</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- The right honorable gentleman might wait until he hears the views of representatives from South Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3548</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr REID</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am quite willing to give way toany member of the State who desires to speak. I suppose I shall have a right to speak later, and that I shall not forfeit that right in giving way now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. BATCHELOR</inline>(South Australia).I have to beg the right honorable gentleman&#39;s pardon for interrupting him, butI thought that possibly he would rather hear whether there was any proposition to dissent, and the reasons for any such dissent before he committed himself to the Government proposal or against it. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- No reasons for assent have yet been given. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I move- </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">That the motion be amended by the omission of the word &#34; approves,&#34; line 1, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word &#34;disapproves.&#34; </para>
<para class="block">I propose this amendment entirely apart from any objection with respect to the. names, though I think that the divisions have not been well chosen. For instance, we have a &#34;Flinders&#34; in &#34;Victoria already, and it would be confusing to have two members for Flinders in the House. Then the name &#34; Chamberlain&#34; is one to which objection may be taken as it has no special connexion with the State of South Australia. I make no other reference to the name, but thereare no towns, livers, bays, or gentlemen of the name of Chamberlain prominent in South Australian history. The names of some of these proposed Federal electoratesare the same as those of State electorates, while the electorates themselves are not coterminous in their boundaries, and that, I think, will be found inconvenient. I do not desire at present to discuss the question of names. My chief objection to the proposed divisions is, that I do not consider that they will enable a fair representation of the opinions of the electors of South Australia to be secured. That, I think, is the only reason which can fairly be advanced in objection to any electorate proposed - that it will not insure a fair representation of the political views of the electors. I admit that two difficulties confront me in connexion with my amendment. The first is that no opposition was shown by the electors to the divisions made by the Electoral Commissioner. I cannot blame the Government for proposing that the report of that officer should be adopted, because they have nothing else to guide them. The late <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Boothby</inline> received no suggestions for alterations of the boundaries during the time specified under the Act. The reasons for this omission are not apparent. Some opposition has since been evinced, because meetings have been held to protest against the boundaries recommended by the Com missioner, and I believe that some of the resolutions passed at such meetings were sent to an honorable member of this House. The other difficulty is that the time now left for sending back the report to the Commissioner, and considering any alterations that may be afterwards made, and arriving at a final decision before the elections are to be held, is very short. Therefore, it seems to me that, if we desire the State of South Australia to be divided, we are almost bound to approve of the divisions. I do not think the Government have dealt fairly with us in submitting the report some six weeks after it was received. The report from South Australia was the first received from the States, and it should have been submitted at the first possible opportunity in order that we might fairly consider it, and secures the adoption of any alterations that might be considered desirable. Therefore I think I have some right to complain of the action of the Government in delaying this matter for a period of six weeks. The difficulty is not so great in regard to the other States, because, in the event of the new divisions not proving acceptable, they have the present divisions to fallback upon, whereas, inthecase of South Australia, the electors will have to vote as at the first elections unless the subdivision of the State is agreed upon. We must remember also that, until this House agrees to some subdivision, the State Parliament can exercise its rights and divide the State into electorates for the purposes of the Federal election. This fact places us in a most unfair position. My objection to the proposed subdivision is that it will not permit of a fair representation of the opinions of the people of South Australia. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFK</name.id>
<electorate>DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GROOM, Littleton</name>
<name role="display">Mr L E GROOM</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member mean that due regard has not been paid to community of interests? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- That term is so vague that I do not know what it means. It is difficult to say where community of interests begins and ends. I object to the concentration of the democratic vote into one constituency. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is not that what would be called community of interests ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- Community of interests surely does not mean that all those persons holding certain political views should be &#34;jammed &#34; into one constituency. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4E</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CONROY, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Conroy</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member wish the electors favorable to the labour party to be split up so that they could not return even one representative? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3549</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should like to be allowed to state the matter in my own way. At the last Federal election the leader of the conservative party received 27,000 votes, and the leader of the labour party 24,000 votes. Therefore, there was a difference of only 3,000 votes for the whole of the State, whereas, in six out of the seven districts now proposed, the leader of the conservative party beat the leader of the labour party, even though the voting was in the proportion of four conservative to three labour votes. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFK</name.id>
<electorate>DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GROOM, Littleton</name>
<name role="display">Mr L E GROOM</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the honorable member speaking of thelabour vote only? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am taking the extreme vote on either side, because it would be impossible to tell how other votes were cast. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- How can the honorable member tell that the electors voted one way or the other?. Would it not be possible for the labour votes to be given to other than labour candidates ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>Mr.BATCHELOR.- I am speaking of the votes that were cast for the direct labour representatives. I do not wish to unfairly represent the matter. At the last subdi vision of the electoral district for State purposes, the labour vote was concentrated in accordance with what I believe was a deliberate plan to defeat the labour party. They concentrated the votes where the labour party had been successful. The Electoral Commissioner was a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, and I am not imputing any unfairness upon his part. I believe that he adopted a wrong basis, but I do not for a moment imagine that he deliberately intended to concentrate the votes in the way that he has done. The State Parliament is responsible for the original concentration of the labour vote. At the last election that concentration had the effect of nullifying a considerable number of democratic votes, with the result that the strength of the labour party in South Australia has been considerably reduced. I repeat that the Electoral Commissioner took the divisions adopted by the State Parliament as his basis. Hence the concentration which arises. To equalize matters as nearly equal as possible under the quota, he intensified this evil by taking out of a constituency which had no very pronounced political views, a district in which there was a strong democratic vote, and including it in an already concentrated labour centre. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- In taking out Glenelg he excluded a conservative district. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is exactly what I desired the honorable member to say. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The districts nearly balance. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am aware that Glenelg, Marion, and Sturt very nearly balance Goodwood ; but, in taking out these districts from the district of Torrens, what did the Commissioner do ? He included the district in which the labour party had been very successful, in that of Port Adelaide, which was already entirely composed of democratic voters. Then he included the conservative end of Glenelg, Marion, and Sturt in the Barker district, which had no particular bias, and as a result the alteration effected dominates that district in a conservative direction. Had he made a fair subdivision, he would have included the conservative district of Glenelg in that of Port Adelaide, with whichit has a community of interests - because it certainly has a community of interests with the Semaphore, Henley Beach, and the other watering places which it adjoins. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- With all except Port Adelaide, the voting in which dominates the whole position. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- It has a greater community of interests as a watering place with the other watering places which it adjoins, than with the district of Mount Gambier, which is some 300 miles away. Why should Glenelg or any other district be manipulated merely for party purposes ? That is what I object to. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4E</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CONROY, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Conroy</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member suggest that the Commissioner was influenced by party considerations ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. I merely ask why a district should be manipulated for party purposes ? I make no reflection upon the Commissioner. I think that he made a mistake in taking as his basis the existing divisions for the State Parliament. Having done so, he was in a difficulty to make up his quota, and in the particular instance to which I am referring he adopted a course which has resulted in including all the democratic votes in one constituency. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3550</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4E</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CONROY, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Conroy</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be very handy for an elector to have his vote for the Federal and the State Parliaments, as far as possible, in the same constituency. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be very much preferable if it were possible. From that point of view I admit that the action of the Commissioner was justified. He looked at the matter from an entirely nonparty stand-point. Nevertheless this House has a right to consider the effect of any subdivision which he has recommended, and if the effect of that subdivision is to give an unfair indication of the opinions of the electors of South Australia, we ought to insist upon an alteration of the boundaries. It is our business to look at the political side of this question. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4E</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CONROY, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Conroy</name>
</talker>
<para>- That would lead to gerrymandering of the very worst type. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- There can be no gerrymandering when the position is put openly before the country, as I am putting it now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is all the same. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the leader of the Opposition means that I am attempting to do anything for the sake of securing an advantage to any honorable members of this House- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not wish to imply that. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not imagine for a moment that the right honorable and learned member means that. So far as I am personally concerned - as I shall probably contest the Port Adelaide seat - the subdivision recommended by the Commissioner would make my position perfectly secure. It is almost unthinkable that I should receive any opposition. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- They mustbe a wonderfully intelligent body of electors. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- They are ; but if my suggestion were adopted I should certainly have to face opposition at the forthcoming election. If Glenelg, Brighton, and Start were included in the district of Port Adelaide, and if Goodwood were excluded, it would alter the position very materially. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Not appreciably. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- There are 2,500 votes in the district of Goodwood, the great majority of which are cast in the democratic interest. In Glenelg and Sturt there are 2,000 odd votes, which give an even larger majority to the conservative party. Yet, if we exclude the 2,500 votes and include the 2,000 votes, the honorable member declares that the position will not be appreciably altered. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Mr.v. L. Solomon. - If we included the whole of the Glenelg district in that of Port </para>
<para>Adelaide, it would not alter the position one iota. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- If that be so, it bears out my statement that the whole of the democratic electors have been packed into one constituency, especially when it is possible to substitute some 2,500 conservative electors for 2,500 democratic ones without appreciably altering the result. It is possible, according to the honorable member, to alter some 5,000 votes out of a totalof 23,000 without making any appreciable difference. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Mr.V. L. Solomon. - It would simply disfranchise Glenelg, Brighton, and certain other places. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Because they would be absolutely overwhelmed by the Port Adelaide vote. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would disfranchise the minority. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- If these divisions be adopted more than one-third of the electors of South Australia will be disfranchised in the sense in which the honorable member uses that term. The electors of Goodwood, according to the honorable member&#39;s assumption, have a right to use their influence in the districtof Torrens, to which they properly belong. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Hear, hear. I agree with that. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- The municipality of Unley has been torn asunder, and a portion of it attached to another electoral district. However, Ido not intend to dwell upon this matter. I have placed the position before the House, and I defy any honorable member who is familiar with the conditions which prevail in South Australia to&#39; dispute one word which 1 have uttered. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POYNTON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr Poynton</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is there now any chance of obtaining an alteration of these divisions ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3551</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is a very pertinent question. Recently I asked the Minister whether it would be possible to obtain an alteration of the divisions before the next elections, but I did not obtain an answer in the form in which I desired that it should be given. I simply wished him to say &#34; Yes &#34; or &#34; No &#34; to my question. The reply was that the reconsideration of the divisions by the Commissioner, the exhibition of the new map in public places, and the return of the. report to this House, would extend over a period of some 46 days, and that some 30 days would elapse. between the holding of the revision court and the issue of the writ. There would thus be a total delay of some 76 days. At the end of that time if we were dissatisfied with any alterations made by the Commissioner, it would be impossible for us to remedy the trouble. We should be compelled to accept the changes even if the divisions were more objectionable than those now before us. I admit that there is considerable difficulty in the way, but the. fact that the effect of returning these divisions to the Commissioner might be that South Australia would ha ve to be polled as one electorate at the next general elections would not warrant my remaining silent and approving of something of which I very much disapprove. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Henry Willis</name>
</talker>
<para>- What is the honorable member&#39;s objection to the Port Adelaide Division? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable member will turn to the map he will see that a curious division has been made. The Goodwood district, as the honorable member knows, comprises a democratic section of the community. It is a ward in the municipal district of Unley, but it has been separated from that municipality and attached to the Port? Adelaide district. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate>ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member desire that it should be cut out of the electorate of Port Adelaide? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- In order that something like fair play may be shown to parties, I suggest that the district of Goodwood should not be divorced from the municipality to which it belongs. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- What about the Sturt district - Brighton, Glenelg, and so forth. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I care not what is done in that direction ; but if Goodwood is taken away from the Port Adelaide electorate, it will be necessary to make up the quota by adding to Port Adelaide a neighbouring district in which there is community of interest, although there may be no real harmony of political opinions. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Henry Willis</name>
</talker>
<para>- What district would the honorable member add to Port Adelaide ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should certainly add the adjoining districts of Glenelg, Brighton, and other watering places. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Henry Willis</name>
</talker>
<para>- Would the honorable member substitute Glenelg for Goodwood? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is what should have been done. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Henry Willis</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is what the honorable member wants ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is not what I want, but what I consider ought to be done in order to obtain a fair subdivision. Apart from the matters to which I have referred, I believe that generally speaking the Commissioner has very fairly divided the State into electorates. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- And the objection raised by the honorable member is a purely political one. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr BATCHELOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I complain also that no community of interest is obtained by attaching Glenelg to the Southern District which stretches away to Mount Gambier on the Victorian border. Glenelg is really a seaside suburb of Adelaide. If community of, interest is to be considered, it should certainly be bracketed with other watering places adjoining it. It will be observed that while the Commissioner has, generally speaking, adhered very closely to the quota in subdividing the State into electorates, the district of East Torrens comprises 26,727 electors, whilst the adjoining district of Barker comprises only 21,791 electors - a difference of some 5,000. That difference is material only from the point of view that East Torrens is growing more rapidly than is any other part of the State, and that in the course of some two years at the outside another redistribution will be necessary in view of the fact that the number of the electors in the district is already very close to the prescribed limit. On the other hand, Barker is not making rapid headway, and there has been practically no change for a great many years in the number of its electors. Its population is unlikely to overtake the quota for some time to come. Even at the risk of having to go back to the old state of things, and leaving it to the State Parliament to make the divisions, the proposed scheme of redistribution should be sent back, though I do not want honorable members to believe for a moment that I advocate this course for any personal or party interest other than I can absolutely justify anywhere. . Any one who knows the position in South Australia will admit that it is exactly as I have put it before the House. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3552</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am sorry that I cannot agree with the honorable member who has just spoken, that the House should express its disapproval of the proposed distribution. No doubt there are very few divisions which, from the party point of view, might not be improved by some alteration. The distribution made by the late <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Boothby,</inline> three or four years ago, would have suited me, personally, very much better than that now under discussion ; but, as in reporting to this Parliament he was tied down to some extent by the provisions of the Constitution relating to the quota,.I think that his distribution is, on the whole, as good as any that could be made. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- The distribution he made three or four years ago was a perfectly fair one, and would have given satisfaction. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although I think it was a good one, I know that it was open to objections, and when it was submitted to the South Australian Assembly there was a diversity of opinion among the two parties in the House with regard to it. The duties of the electorate which I should have represented under that scheme of distribution would have been absolutely a sinecure. In my opinion, the distribution now suggested is a very fair one, and, remembering the conditions with regard to the quota, I fail to see that any other distribution could be suggested which would not be open to objection. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Commissioners are not bound to consult the interests of Members of Parliament. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> is under a mistake in thinking that community of interests has any connexion with party interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- I distinctly object to party interests being taken into consideration. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- No doubt ; but the effect of the honorable member&#39;s argument was that the labour party would suffer to some extent in a contest for the Torrens seat, because a number of electors who would support a labour candidate have been placed in the Port Adelaide instead of in the Torrens division. The honorable member is quite unselfish in his objection to the suggested distribution, because he asks that what is at present a sure thing for himself, should be altered, and possibly an arrangement made which would require him to contesthis seat. I would point out to honorable members that the views of political parties change from time to time. The party in power to-day may three or four years hence be advocating the policy of the present Opposition, and it would be impossible to continually alter the boundaries of the divisions to meet the change in the views of political parties. In my opinion, section 16 of the Act seems to contemplate physical and geographical lines of demarcation rather than political interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr Watson</name>
</talker>
<para>- Should not community of industrial interests be taken into consideration? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; but I do not think that the strength or weakness of the labour party, for example, can be taken into consideration by a Commissioner in dealing with industrial interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr Watson</name>
</talker>
<para>- A manifest attempt to gerrymander the divisions so as to deprive a party of representation in some of them would be unfair. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Of course it would. The Commissioner should have nothing to do with political interests, and presumably <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Boothby,</inline> in making his distribution, never for a moment considered its effect upon the representation of political parties. He, no doubt, gave consideration, as the Act prescribes that the Commissioner shall, to community of interests, and such matters as proximity to ports, railways, and other conditions. The congestion of the labour vote in any particular district was a matter which I am sure did not enter his head. The cure for such an objection as that is the adoption of proportional representation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgins</name>
</talker>
<para>- Should it not be our object to see that each party is fairly represented according to its numbers ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- A lovely map would be made under that system. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is a lovely map. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- On a question of this sort, I would rather trust one man outside the House than twenty in it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- If we try to get a representation of party interests there will be no end to the alteration of suggested distributions. Every distribution we get will be open to some objection. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgins</name>
</talker>
<para>- But surely we can object to any distribution which gives an unfair preponderance of power to any political party? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3553</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- One side or the other will always think that of any distribution. I do not accept the views of the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> on this subject as conclusive. Probably his colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. V.</inline> L. Solomon,&#34; will be able to throw more light on the subject than I can as to the effect upon party contests of the proposed boundary between East Torrens and Port Adelaide. If we want to secure the proper representation of parties, and to prevent the congestion of electors of any one party in certain divisions, we should alter the mode of representation, not the scheme of distribution. The adoption of proportional representation would strike at the root of the objections of the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> and unless there is strong cause to the contrary shown, I think that we may adopt the proposed distribution as a fair and equitable one. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGINS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgins</name>
</talker>
<para>- Suppose the boundaries were so arranged as to keep out all the freetrade candidates, what then ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not know how such an arrangement could be made. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- Surely the Government would not appoint as Commissioners men who -would try to make such distributions ! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is one strong objection to referring the present scheme of distribution back to the Commissioner, in that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Boothby</inline> is unfortunately no longer with us. It will generally be admitted that he was a most competent man for dealing with this matter. I do not know who the Government intend to appoint in his place, but the&#34;&#39; electoral officer of the State, though an able man, is quite new to the business. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">- Mr. Schomburg</inline>lias been gazetted as the new Commissioner. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am very glad to hear it, because he was of great assistance to the late Commissioner. No distribution can be suggested to which objection cannot be taken, and I think that that now before us is a very fair one. During the 30 days that the proposal was exposed for public criticism no objection was sent in, and so far as I can ascertain, the distribution gives general satisfaction in South Australia. I agree with the suggestion of the honorable member for South Australia that some of the names Attached to the divisions should be altered. I think we should give recognition chiefly to names which are deserving from the point of view of local patriotism. Why <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chamberlain&#39;s</inline> name&#39; was chosen for one division I do not know ; but I think it an admirable suggestion of the honorable, member for Robertson that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Boothby&#39;s.</inline> name be substituted. There may, however, be some difficulty in altering the proposed, names, because under section 19 of the Act-, the maps which must be presented to Par- liament must show the names and boundariesof the proposed divisions. In my opinion, Parliament has no power to alter the-, names. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am advised thatthe names can be altered. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should be glad to hearwhat reasons the Minister can urge against-, what appears to be the express conditions, of the section - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The number of electors residing in each proposed division together with a map signed by him. showing the names and boundaries of- each proposed division. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">We cannot alter the boundaries, and I seenothing in the text to show that we can alter the names. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7U</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CROUCH, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr Crouch</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable and learned member will look at section 21 hewill find that both Houses have to approveof the proposed distribution. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is so, but the word &#34;distribution &#34; covers both names and boundaries. This is merely a specification of the method of distribution. &#34;Distribution&#34;&#34; is the generic term used to comprehendboth. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- But a name is not-, a distribution. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- &#39;&#39; Distribution &#34; is used to cover both boundaries and names. I do-, not think that section 21 helps the honorable gentleman, because it says - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>If both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution approving of any proposed distribution, theGovernorGeneral may, by proclamation, declare the names and boundaries o&#163; the divisions - not as fixed by the House, but as suggested by the Commissioner. I hope thata way will be found out of the difficulty, because personally I should like to see thenames altered. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- Surely the Governor-General cannot do anything in the way of alteringwhat is done under an Act of Parliament ?&#34; The Executive cannot have power to override an Act of Parliament. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3554</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Another consideration isthat I do not know why the Governmentshould propose a motion approving of thedistribution proposed for South Australia, when they intend to alter the division* proposed for the States ofVictoria and New South Wales. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I must ask the honorable and learned member not to deal with that matter. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not propose to deal with that matter now, but I say that it does not appear to me to be right that we should make fish of one and fowl of another. It is not right under an Act which contemplates uniformity, though it is not mandatory, to say that the divisions should be adopted as proposed for South Australia, and immediately afterwards to ask that those proposed for New South Wales and Victoria should be reviewed.I believe that most of the representatives of South Australia are willing to agree to the distribution proposed, but I hope honorable members will not allow the principle of uniformity, which is really the essence of all Federal legislation, to be immediately afterwards departed from. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRO</name.id>
<electorate>GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>PROT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCLEAN, Allan</name>
<name role="display">Mr A McLEAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Even if it does not suit the people of Victoria? Is the question of uniformity of more importance than the will of the people ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable and learned member for South Australia not to refer to the divisions proposed for the other States. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GLYNN, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Mr GLYNN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I find that I am trespassing upon the subject of those divisions, and I shall not deal with them further. I hope that the amendment will be rejected, and that the divisions proposed will be adopted. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O&#39;MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr O&#39;MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I suggest to the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> that he should withdraw his amendment. There is no time now to rectify any mistakes which may have been made if the divisions are sent back to South Australia for revision. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, there is. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O&#39;MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr O&#39;MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think not. We shall be out of this place in 60 days, and there is therefore no time to do anything in the way of amending the proposed divisions. Although I do not agree with the democratic effect of the divisions proposed for South Australia, we should accept things as they are at present, and endeavour next year to so alter them as to make them more equitable and just on the basis of democracy. The divisions of Tasmania about to be proposed will be before the House soon, and while I do not agree with the way in which that State has been cut up, I am willing to accept the divisions proposed, because it is better and more in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution that we should do so. With regard to the objection raised to the names of &#34;Flinders&#34; and &#34;Chamberlain,&#34; I suggest to honorable members that those divisions should be called &#34; Washington,&#34; &#34; Stonewall Jackson,&#34; &#34; Jefferson,&#34; or any of the old historical names such as &#34;Abraham Lincoln&#34; if they cannot find names of Australian citizens which will be suitable. We . might call a division &#34; Captain Cook,&#34; and I should be perfectly willing to agree to that, as I do not desire to have any battles with our South Australian friends about the names. I hope the amendment will be withdrawn. I intend to vote for the motion. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am sure the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> has no idea in bringing forward his amendment of advancing any party view. I give the honorable member credit for being above anything of the kind. At the same time, I agree with the honorable member that the division proposed is not satisfactory. I think that the manner in which the State has been divided will be found unsatisfactory to both sides in politics. With respect to Goodwood being tacked on to Port Adelaide, I must admit that there is a good deal of force in the honorable members remarks, and that Goodwood ought to have been left in the district of East Torrens, to which it naturally belongs by its geographical position and community of interest. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- And on account of its municipality. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3555</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not quite agree with the honorable member in another matter. I think that Brighton, Glenelg, and a portion of Sturt should have been left in the same district. If those two alterations were made I do not think there would be very much difference in voting power from a party Stand-point. I am sure that it cannot be satisfactory to the people of Glenelg that they should be tacked on to the electorate of Barker. It would be equally unsatisfactory to the people of Glenelg, and of a portion of Sturt, if they were tacked on to Port Adelaide, because they would be virtually disfranchised, their numbers not being nearly sufficient to produce any effect upon the enormous labour vote of Port Adelaide itself. We need not go into the question as to whether the division favours the .democratic or conservative vote, but I do not think that much difference is caused by cUtting off one slice of the electorate and putting on another. In my opinion the division proposed is not a satisfactory one, and I am, therefore, prepared to vote for the amendment. I indorse what was said a moment ago by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Glynn.</inline> I should like to know why the proposed division of South Australia should be selected by the Government for approval, and at the same time it is suggested that&#39; the divisions proposed for the other States j-shall be disapproved of. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I must ask the honorable member not to refer to those divisions. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- This question was referred to before, or I should not have alluded, to it. Though I do not believe any great amount of wrong has been done to either one side or the other in politics by the proposed division, I shall support the amendment disapproving of it. I should prefer to see the whole State polled as one division, as was the case before, than that there should be a division of districts which does not give satisfaction to all sections of the community. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. REID</inline>(East Sydney). - I only wish to refer to a very small matter in connexion with the names of the proposed divisions. There is no doubt that it will be very awkward if we have two honorable members for Flinders in this House. At the same time, I do not think that any alteration could be made by the Governor-General in Council if we approved of the distribution without suggesting an alteration of the names. If we suggest an alteration of the names, I do not question the power of the Governor-General to give effect to our wishes. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is what we propose. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr REID</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think it could be done in that way without any objection, but not otherwise. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. KINGSTON</inline>(South Australia).With regard to the proposed distribution of the electorates, I can speak with freedom from personal interest, because I have not the slightest intention to submit myself to either of the districts which are affected. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KU9</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Vaiben</name>
<name role="display">Mr V L SOLOMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The right honorable gentleman has a much safer one. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3556</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr KINGSTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not know that ; but I confess that I have been very fairly treated in connexion with the polling throughout South Australia. I have great confidence in the judgment of the officer who was responsible for the subdivision. South Australia never had a better officer than the late Sheriff Boothby, and I venture to think that the benefits of the service which he has rendered in connexion with electoral matters have been by no means confined to South Australia, but have been shared by all Australia. Whilst approving generally of the divisions which he has recommended, I cannot help thinking, after listening to the remarks of the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> that he has made a mistake with regard to the inclusion of Glenelg in the district of Barker, and the exclusion of the district of Goodwood from Barker, and its inclusion in the district of Port Adelaide. I think that can hardly be justified. The position is this :. Glenelg is a fashionable watering - place, corresponding to a very great extent with similar watering-places to be found in the district of Port Adelaide, notably- the Semaphore, Henley Beach,- the Grange, and others, and it is much closer to them than is the district of Goodwood. The latter district may be described as the home chiefly of workers employed in the city, and is in no sense a fashionable neighbourhood. It was originally started by a building society, and has been extended from time to time. Goodwood and Glenelg have for years past been included in the same district, and I should have been glad to see them so included now. What has been done <inline font-style="italic">1</inline> Glenelg, which is, as I say, a fashionable watering-place, adjoining other places which are included in Port Adelaide, is not selected for inclusion in that electorate,, but is joined to the district of which Mount Gambier is the chief polling place, and which includes the greater part of the south-eastern district peopled by producers generally. Goodwood, on the other hand, which is farther away from Port Adelaide, has been included in that district. I cannot help thinking that a mistake has beenmade. Speaking about community of interests - I am not bothered particularly about the political views which are held by the* residents of different localities - a fashionable watering-place such as Glenelg should, if ifc could be conveniently done, be bracketed with similar places in the neighbourhood, and, undoubtedly,&#34;these are to be found rather in the district of Port Adelaide than in that of Barker. I am glad to see that the result of the efforts of the late Sheriff Boothby are deemed to be more acceptable than those of the Commissioners in the other States, but after having listened to the remarks of other honorable members, and bringing my own knowledge to bear on the subject - Brighton, which is / in the neighbourhood of Glenelg, is the place where I reside - I think a mistake has been made, and, under all the circumstances, I think it my duty to vote with the majority of my colleagues from South Australia. I hope the House will be disposed to give effect to their view of the matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am quite willing to credit the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> with the best intentions in bringing this matter before the House. But, judging from an interjection he made, I am afraid that he is not quite so ready to give others similar credit. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- I apologize. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member contended that an effort should be made to so divide the electorates that political parties might be fairly represented in each district. By interjection I asked the honorable member how we could discover the proportions of electors of different views in particular localities. In some districts in New South Wales these proportions are constantly varying, and I do not think that we could possibly enter into any such question. Minor matters, such as whether particular watering-places or particular &#39; townships should be included within an electoral district, would arise in connexion with every electorate in Australia. I could raise objections to the inclusion within my electorate of some places, and to the exclusion pf others ; but I think that we should proceed upon the broader line of considering whether the instructions given by us have been seriously departed from. Another point is that the recommendations of the Commissioner were submitted to the people of South Australia for 30 days, and no objection was raised. If any strong objection had been entertained to the proposed divisions, why were they not previously expressed ? Should we not act upon strong objections raised for good cause shown during the period allowed by law rather than upon objections put forward at a&#39; later stage, and unaccompanied by any suggestion as to how thea visions could be more satisfactorily made. Of course, it may be that there is some ground for the opinion that a particular portion of a district should not be included in an electorate. But 1 would point out that the inclusion or exclusion of any part of a district may affect the narrow margin which we have allowed in the Act. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kingston</name>
</talker>
<para>- But how can we justify the picking out of a part of a district which is more remote, and the inclusion of it in an electorate? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- That course may be necessary for two reasons. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- The numbers are the same in each case. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the honorable member quite sure of that ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- The districts of Glenelg, Brighton, and Sturt comprise about the same number of electors. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Even then it does not follow that by substituting one district for another the Commissioner would not disturb other electorates in an even more objectionable way. Further than that we have made provision for a community of interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Bat not for a concentration of party interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Certainly not. If, however, it does happen that there is a concentration of party interests that is not the fault of the person who made the subdivision. For example, it may be that one district is entirely composed of working men, and that the adjacent district comprises the same class of voters. If the electors in that case are included in one district there can be no charge of concentration against the person undertaking the subdivision of that district. I should think that the numbers affected in the districts to which reference has been made are not so serious as to justify a charge of&#39; concentration of particular interests. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- I made no charge. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3557</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not asserted that the honorable member did. Nevertheless, a charge of that sort would have to be proved before we should be justified in saying that the subdivision effected was wrong upon those grounds. I am quite sure that in a great many electorates much more serious objections will be urged. I am inclined to fear that if we enter upon these minute details in the case of every electorate we shall undertake an almost hopeless task. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JR7</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BONYTHON, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir LANGDON BONYTHON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Whilst sympathizing with much that has been said by the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> and the right honorable and learned member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kingston,</inline> I feel that I must support the Government in approving of the electoral divisions for that State. I take up this position because I am quite sure that the people of South Australia generally approve of the way in which that State has been subdivided. Up to the present time there has been no question raised as to the boundaries not being acceptable, with the exception of the boundary between the districts of Barker and East Torrens. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the honorable member any ground for making that statement? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JR7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BONYTHON, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir LANGDON BONYTHON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some time ago I was approached by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chinner,</inline> the Mayor of Unley, who forwarded me a resolution which was passed by a meeting held at Goodwood. That meeting expressed the opinion that the boundary between Torrens and Barker was not a satisfactory arrangement, but the meeting was held after the month had elapsed during which exception could be token to the electoral boundaries. I brought the matter before this House by means of a question, and ascertained that nothing could be done. In view of all the circumstances it seems to me that, as a representative of South Australia, I should not be justified in asking that these divisions should be rejected. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate>Robertson</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- As Iam fairly acquainted with the State of South Australia, I feel justified in offering a few remarks upon this question. . In. the first place the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> objects to the inclusion of Goodwood, in the district of Port Adelaide, on the ground that there is no community of interests between the two places. I contend that there is a community of interests in the case of Goodwood with the district of Port Adelaide, and also with that of East Torrens generally. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>-Not so much as there is in its connexion with the rest of the municipality of Unley. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The taking in of Unley would exceed the quota. Goodwood is populated by working men, and by many old residents, who made it a suburban retreat in the early days. Then, again, it is a centre in which a good many railway men reside. I think we may fairly assume that the community of interests is as strongly pronounced in the case of Goodwood as it is in that of Hindmarsh and Port Adelaide. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- But Unley is separated from Goodwood. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- That has been rendered necessary by reason of the quota. Regarding the question of gerrymandering, I would point out that if we included Unley we should probably have to take in Parkside. Otherwise we should certainly give rise to a suspicion of gerrymandering. The honorable member for Bland, who has no knowledge of the district whatever, suggests that a little gerrymandering has taken place. But I would point out to him that a certain portion of this district has been included in the new Federal electorate from a point on the old Bay-road. The part in. the angle, which is shown in the map, represents what is known as &#34;The Old Black Forest,&#34; and the population settled there is very sparse indeed. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- But the Electoral Commissioner in effecting this subdivision has crossed the Bay-road. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- No; only at the point I have indicated. I have the map before me, and I have travelled the road as a boy. The honorable member for Bland, who would like the district to be a perfect oblong, does not know the geography of &#34;the place, otherwise he would be aware that there is a park round Adelaide. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr Watson</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not yet spoken upon the question. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am referring to the interjections made by the honorable member. He has walked round the chamber with a map in his hand for the purpose of showing that gerrymandering has taken place. He wishes the new Federal electorate, to which reference has been made, to be a perfect oblong. But I would point out that there is no population settled in the park lands around Adelaide. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3558</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kingston</name>
</talker>
<para>- In travelling from Goodwood to the Port one has to cross the Bayroad. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is necessary to take in the Bay- road for the purpose of arranging the quota. The honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> has referred to the position of Glenelg, and he would be prepared to allow the Commissioner to make up the quota in the Port Adelaide division by taking in Brighton, which is 4 miles beyond Glenelg. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a watering place. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is the argument put forward by the right honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kingston.</inline> He has referred to various watering places, and it seems to me that the Port Adelaide division derives its name from the fact that several ports exist within its boundaries. Glenelg, however, is not a port. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JR7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BONYTHON, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir Langdon Bonython</name>
</talker>
<para>- No one takes exception to the name, but- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is suggested that Glenelg should be included in the Port Adelaide division. As a matter of fact, there is no community of interest between the workers of Port Adelaide and the city men who reside at Glenelg and Brighton. Glenelg is a watering place, andits population consists largely of people following various callings in the city, while- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- What is the Semaphore? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The population of the Semaphore consists chiefly of people working in and about Port Adelaide, and a small section of clerks and women who have business in Adelaide. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KINGSTON, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kingston</name>
</talker>
<para>- And the Grange ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Grange is a watering place. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">THOMAS, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Mr Thomas</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the honorable member any suggestion to make in regard to Henley Beach? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Evidently the honorable member is not familiar with the district, or he would know that Henley Beach and the Grange are very close together. When the right honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kingston,</inline> speaks of Glenelg as a watering place, he forgets that in the distribution made by the Commissioner it is classed with Port Victor- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Which is 70 miles away from it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- And Port Macdonnell </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Which is 300 miles away. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; some of your districts must be large as your population is comparatively small. Glenelg is included with Brighton and is also classed with Kingston, a watering place named after the father of the right honorable member for South Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- What isthe distance between Henley Beach and Glenelg? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- About 4 miles. The intervening area is but sparsely populated, and that is another reason why the suggestion made by the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> should not be carried out. It seems to me that he has not made out a good case. The right honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kingston,</inline> made out a very bad case, indeed, for he endeavoured to convince the House that Goodwood is much further from Port Adelaide than is Glenelg. As a matter of fact they are equi-distant. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- According to the map they are equi-distant. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WATSON, John Christian</name>
<name role="display">Mr Watson</name>
</talker>
<para>- But maps are notoriously inaccurate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILLIS, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr HENRY WILLIS</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable member for Bland were familiar with the lines upon which maps are drawn, he would have no difficulty in verifying my assertion. I am inclined to think that he is supporting the honorable member for South Australia, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Batchelor,</inline> for some reason which he has not yet expressed. The reason underlying the arguments put forward in favour of the proposed alteration might be summed up in one sentence, and that sentence I shall leave the honorable member for Bland to express. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Amendment negatived. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYD</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POYNTON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr POYNTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- If it be possible to alter the names of certain divisions without necessitating the return of the distribution to the Commissioner, I should like to move one or two amendments. I understand that there is some difficulty in the way which the Minister will, perhaps, explain. I desire, for example, that the Flinders division shall be named &#34;Grey,&#34; after <inline font-weight="bold">Sir George</inline> Grey. As honorable members are aware, there is already a Federal electorate of &#34; Flinders&#34; in Victoria. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3559</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir William Lyne</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be better to deal with the electorates in their proper order. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If any honorable member has a prior amendment to move, he should do so now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is, for example, the Port Adelaide division. That is the name of a State electorate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POYNTON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr POYNTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understand that nearly every other honorable member for South Australia has spoken on this question, and therefore cannot move any amendments in this direction. My difficulty is that I do not know the changes which some of them desire in the names of the various electorates. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is open to any honorable member to move an amendment on their behalf. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>Amendments (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Harper)</inline> agreed to- . . </para>
<para>That the motion be amended by the omission of the words &#34;Port Adelaide,&#34; with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word &#34;Hindmarsh &#34; ; and by the omission of the word &#34;Chamberlain,&#34; with a view to insert in. Heu thereof the word &#34; Wakefield.&#34; </para>
<para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin)</inline> agreed to- </para>
<quote>
<para>That the motion be amended by the omission of the words &#34;East Torrens,&#34; with a view to the insertion of the word &#34; Boothby.&#34; </para>
</quote>
<para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Wilks)</inline> agreed to - - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the motion be amended by the omission of the word &#34;Flinders,&#34; with a view to insert in lien thereof the word &#34;Grey.&#34; </para>
</quote>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. KINGSTON</inline>(South Australia). - I wish to know if the Government are perfectly satisfied with this alteration of the names of divisions ? Are they of opinion that it is an approval within the terms of the Act when what is proposed by the Commissioner is not approved in its entirety by the House ? I have a strong notion, though I may be altogether wrong, that if both Houses of Parliament pass resolutions approving of any suggested distribution - which, undoubtedly, to my mind, includes the names as well as the boundaries contained in the Commissioner&#39;s report and the attached maps signed by him - something may be done. But can it be said that both Houses have approved of a distribution if the House of Representatives&#39; rejects some of the names of the divisions recommended by the Commissioner, and substitutes othernames <inline font-style="italic">t</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>AttorneyGeneral</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - There is no express authority for the alteration by this House of either names or boundaries ; but whereas an alteration of the boundaries of the division&#39;s would be an alteration of substance, the alteration of names is not. In my opinion, the Act is not so severely worded as to prevent us from making immaterial alterations, and no court would say that the alteration of names is material. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. </para>
</speech>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Resolved</title>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>That this House approves of the proposed distribution of the State of South Australia into seven Divisions, named Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Angas, .Barker, Wakefield, Boothby, and Grey, and shown on the maps laid upon the table of the House of Representatives on the 7th July&#39; last. </para>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : VICTORIA</title>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate>Hume</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Trade and Customs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That this House disapproves of the proposed distribution of the State of Victoria into 23 divisions, named Balaclava, Ballaarat, Bendigo, Bourke, Corangamite, Corinella; Coria, Flemington, Flinders, Gippsland, Grampians, Indi, Jika, Kooyong, Laanecoorie, Melbourne, Melbourne Ports, Mernda, Moira, Toorak, Wannon, Wimmera, Yarra, and shown on the mapa laid upon, the table of the House of Representatives on the 21st July last. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I have placed this motion second on the list because, as I have already explained, the proposed distribution of Victoria was. the second to be reported upon by the Commissioner. I ask the House to disapprove of the distribution for several reasons. One reason, to which I shall make further reference presently, is the prevalence of a series of disastrously dry seasons, which has driven the population of Victoria and other States towards the coast. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4E</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CONROY, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Conroy</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nevertheless there seems to be a very large allowance for country representation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3560</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think the allowance is large. The population now residing on the eastern coast of Australia cannot be considered a normal population, and that fact will appear more clearly when I come to deal with the proposed distribution of New South Wales. The Commissioner in reporting upon the written objections to hisdistribution which have been received by him enumerated them in this way - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>That the statistics as to the number of electors residing in the country are unreliable. </para>
<para>That owing to the drought numbers of electors, from country districts have moved, probably only temporarily, to the metropolitan centres. </para>
<para>That a very large proportion of the persons entitled, who have been accidentally omitted from&#39; the returns, are country residents, and that the number so omitted is almost great enough to form a quota for a division. </para>
<para>That the country has been unfairly treated, because the Commissioner has not taken sufficient advantage of the margin allowed above and below the quota. </para>
<para>That the proposed readjustment of boundaries is inequitable and unjust, inasmuch as the country districts will lose one representative, which must prove detrimental to rural industries and its legislative needs. </para>
<para class="block">That community of interest has been ignored. </para>
<para class="block">He practically ignored those objections, but every one who has lived in the country districts of Victoria knows that there is a great deal of truth in .the statement that there has been a very large exodus from the dry parts of the State to the coast, and if the proposed distribution were approved of by the House, we should find, twelve months hence, that we. had given a larger representation to the metropolitan districts than is given under the present arrangement. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3561</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Tudor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Not at all. There has&#39;been no drought in Gippsland, and yet the proposed new electorate of Yarra will have twice as many electors as the proposed new electorate of Gippsland. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3561</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNE, William</name>
<name role="display">Sir WILLIAM LYNE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will presently tell honorable members the number of electors in each of the present divisions and in each of the proposed divisions, and they will then see that, with Wo exceptions, the difference in numbers is not very great. Under the circumstances to which I have referred, I think it would be better to make these divisions when conditions are normal and seasons are good. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3561</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">REID, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Reid</name>
</talker>
<para>- When will conditions be normal <inline font-style="italic">f</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3561</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KIN</name.id>
<electorate />