/
19030819_reps_1_15.xml
9271 lines (9271 loc) · 530 KB
/
19030819_reps_1_15.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?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>1903-08-19</date>
<parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>HouseofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1903-08-19</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>PRINTING COMMITTEE</title>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Report (No. 7) presented by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline></para>
<para>Quick, read by the Clerk, and adopted. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PETITIONS</title>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
<type>petition</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. DEAKIN</inline>presented a petition from, the President and Council of the Amalgamated Miners' Association of Victoria, theMayor and councillors of Ballarat East, theMayor and councillors of Sebastopol, and 3,000 citizens of Ballarat, praying theHouse to pass into law the Bonuses for Manufactures Bill. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. HARTNOLL</inline>presented three petitions . from certain electors of Tasmania, praying the House to prohibit the importation, sale, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in British New Guinea. </para>
<para>Petitions received. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL DIVISIONS : QUEENSLAND</title>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">Debate resumed from 18th August <inline font-style="italic">{videpage</inline> 3787), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William</inline> Lyne - </para>
<quote>
<para>That this House disapproves of the proposed, distribution of the State of Queensland into nine divisions, named Brisbane, Capricornia, Darling: Downs, Herbert, Kennedy, Maranoa, Moreton, Oxley, and Wide Bay, and shown- on the maps, laid upon the Table of the House of Representatives on the 11th August instant. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3847</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>-My object in moving the adjournment of the debate last, night was . to give honorable members an opportunity for the free and intelligent discussion of the distribution of the Queensland Federal divisions proposed by the Commissioner recently appointed by the Government for that purpose. I felt that properconsideration and attention could not begiven to this important matter if we proceeded with it at the late hour' at which weconcladed the sitting. It will be admitted: that the representatives of Queensland should know . pretty well, whether the distribution proposed by the Commissioner is. or is not acceptable to the electors of the' State. I abstained from speaking upon theproposed New South Wales division becauseI felt that I did not possess the information necessary to qualify me to give an. expression of opinion on the subject, and I did the same in regard to the proposed distributions of South Australia and Victoria.. But, in regard to the matter now before theHouee, we, who represent Queensland, arein a very different position. I had tho-' pleasure of spending last week in Brisbane. It was an opportune time to be there, in that it enabled me to meet a larger number of people than I should have met on any other occasion. The annual show was being held, and consequently there were in the city many thousands of people from tho country districts. I mixed freely with them, and took the opportunity to ascertain their feelings in regard to the Commissioner's proposals. I can honestly say that in no instance was any objection to them expressed. Not a solitary elector made the slightest objection to the divisions proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall.</inline> But one morning last week I was very much suiprised to read in the Brisbane newspapers that the Minister for Customs intended to move resolutions dis- . approving of the schemes of distribution for the States of Victoria, Kew South Wales, and Queensland. The Queensland - Commissioner himself found that there were few objections to bis scheme. He says iti his report that - </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Two objections and suggestions in writing have been lodged within the 30 days allowed for that purpose in section 18 of the Act. </para>
<para>The objections came from the districts of Herbert and Kennedy, the other seven Queensland constituencies offered no word of protest. One of the objections came from the honorable member for Herbert, and the other was from the Cairns Political and Progress Association. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr, McDowall</inline> goes on to say that - </para>
<quote>
<para>The only other communication in writing in the shape of a suggestion was from the Cairns District Electoral League which is more a letter of approval than a suggestion. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Seeing that there were, so few objections from the electors of Queensland, I do not see why this House should take it upon itself to reject the scheme prepared by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall.</inline> I believe that the Ministry in appointing <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> and the other Commissioners felt the utmost confidence in them. The general public had the same confidence, and were prepared to abide by whatever scheme was proposed by them. What can be the reasons for the determination of the Ministry not to accept the schemes, I am unable to say. But I fancy that there must be other reasons than the drought. A large number of people have come to the conclusion that there must be other reasons. Is it possible that the Minister had a feeling that the divisions prepared for Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland might have such an effect that at the next election some members' of the Government would, be. left out in the cold? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</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>- The Minister could not have thought so as regards Queensland. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish I were the only member of this House who entertained that feeling. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<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>- It could not refer to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Drake,</inline> because he is not a member of this House. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">- Senator Drake</inline>is not tho only member of the Government. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</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>- He is the only representative of Queensland in the Government. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- There are members of the Government who represent Kew South Wales and Victoria. Is -it possible that the Minister imagined that the scheme prepared for New South Wales was such that even he might be left out in the cold, and that some members who usually support the Government might find it difficult to obtain seats in the House? The country never expected that the' divisions would be so arranged as to make it easier for members of the present Parliament to obtain re-election. ' The electorates were supposed to be divided in the best interests of the Commonwealth. Speaking for myself, the electorate of Oxley, as now proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall,</inline> is somewhat against my interests. A very large slice of the present Oxley divisions has been taken away from my electorate, and something like 2,000 electors have been given overto my honorable friend, the member for Moreton. I think I am justified in saying that at the last election those electors voted strongly in my favour, and possibly they would do the same again if they had the opportunity. Bat they have been taken away from me, and' have been given to my honorable friend, who, I hope, will receive their support. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</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 think the insinuation the honorable member is making is unworthy of him. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3848</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I hope I am wrong. I have no desire to do an injustice to any member of this House. I would not willingly do an injustice to any one. But I would remind the honorable gentleman that some time ago, when the honorable member for Gippsland urged that Parliament should make the divisions, the Minister urged that that course would show partiality. The same Minister has now been guilty of greater - partiality than any Minister in Australia has ever been. Although I do not olaim that the divisions are in any way perfect, I still maintain that we ought to accept them, and to carry out . the next election on the basis of the new scheme, and not according to the old one. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<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>- The old scheme was good enough to return the honorable member, was it not ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not speaking for myself. I do not care a rap whether or not I am again returned to Parliament. I have been very comfortable in the Federal Parliament. ' Honorable members on both sides of the House have treated me with the greatest consideration. I want to do justice to every honorable member. I have nothing to say against any one individually. But I am speaking of the policy now proposed. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDonald</name>
</talker>
<para>- What new scheme does the honorable member refer to ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I refer to the scheme now placed before the House. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDonald</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. MoDo</inline> wall's second scheme. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is the one that we should recognise. The scheme which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> first prepared was only in existence for forty-eight hours. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDonald</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Philp's</inline> scheme. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I maintain that it is not. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</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 is a pity that some people in Queensland have not left <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> alone. There has been a disgraceful state of things there. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> would allow himself to be interfered with by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Philp</inline> or any one else. I look upon <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> as being independent of politics, and as one who is determined to do justice to the public generally. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCDONALD, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr McDonald</name>
</talker>
<para>- How does the honorable member account for the alterations made in the first scheme? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- In Queensland there was a howl of dissent at the time the first division was announced, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> was sensible enough to discover that he had made a mistake, and to take the first opportunity to rectify it. I do not claim that the distribution is anything like perfect, but at the same time we ought to adopt it for the purposes of the next election. The honorable member for Gippslaud, for whom I have the highest respect, suggested that Parliament should make the distributions, but the Minister strongly opposed that idea because he thought that it would expose us to a charge of partiality. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</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>- Did the Minister select the Commissioner for Queensland whom he now alleges has been "got at" ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I take it that he would naturally appoint all the Commissioners, and that he would select independent men, persons having nothing to do with politics, and expect them to do justice to the electors, and to leave out of consideration any individual representative. I was surprised to hear that it was proposed to reject the recommendations of the Commissioners. I do not say that it was owing to my absence that the Ministry got themselves into trouble, but, at any rate, they have involved themselves in difficulties, and placed the House in a most humiliating position. Reliable, honorable, and independent men were appointed to perform certain duties, and now that they have brought forward their reports, their efforts should not be utterly ignored. Why does not the Minister allow the Commissioners an opportunity to revise their work ? They carried out the instructions which were given to them. They paid regard to community or diversity of interest, means of communication, physical features, and the existing boundaries of the divisions. Can any honorable member say that the Commissioner for Queensland did not pay due attention to those matters ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<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>- Yes, we all say so. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not thinkthat that isan altogether correct statement. I do not claim that the distribution now before us is perfect, but I think it should be adopted as the basis of the next elections, and that when the people who have been driven from the country districts by the drought have gone back, in some twelve or eighteen months' time, a further distribution should be made. When the.suspension of the fodder duties was under consideration, no such anxiety was displayed for the welfare of the country people, and I cannot understand why the . Government should now show such concern on their behalf. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<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 wonder that the honorable member is willing to give the country districts any representation whatever. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3849</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The residents in the country districts are entitled to every representation. I should like to remind the honorable member that he represents only 20,627 electors, or 4,050 under the quota. I am a much smaller man in every sense, and of less weight than is the honorable member, and yet I have to carry upon my shoulders 50 per cent, more electors. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3850</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<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>- What is the area of the honorable member's constituency ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3850</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDF</name.id>
<electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EDWARDS, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr R EDWARDS</name>
</talker>
<para>- My electorate isa very compact one and wonderfully rich, and it requires more looking after than the immense territory represented by the honorable member. The only fault I have to find with the distribution proposed is that Queensland is not divided into ten electorates instead of nine. If the population in that State was counted according to the method that has been adopted in Victoria, Queensland would be entitled to an additional member ; but I understand that this is not the proper time at which to discuss that question. I intend to oppose the motion, and I hope that other representatives of Queensland will do the same, because I believe that the electors of that State are looking forward to being able to exercise the franchise under the proposed distribution at the next election. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3850</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<electorate>Herbert</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>- I had hoped that the motion proposed by the Minister would be earned on the voices, because it seems to me that the action of the Commissioner for Queensland is practically indefensible. The honorable member for North Sydney referred last night to the fact that no objections had been raised ; but every one who has had anything to do with politics knows very well that in matters of this kind theelectorsare particularly apathetic Under the conditions of the Electoral Act, copies of the Commissioner's recommendation had to be exhibited for thirty days, and certain forms had to be complied with, and very few men indeed, beyond those intimately concerned, are willing to take any trouble in these matters. It is difficult even to induce men to go to the poll and record their votes, and it is a wonder that any action whatever was taken.' Only two objections were lodged - one from myself, and one from a Cairns political organization. I should like to point out to those honorable members who are exclaiming against the existing divisions, as compared with those proposed by the Commissioner, that, out of 22.2,100 electors, only 5,026 are really interested in the proposed change. The honorable member for Oxley told us .that when he was last in Brisbanehe met a number of people from thecountry. It is the residents in the' country districts who are most interested. in this proposal, and I feel sure 'that they will not object to our adhering to the old divisions for the present. The electors of Maranoa and Kennedy are particularly well represented at present, seeing that they areaccorded more than the full value of theirvotes. Some complaint might be made by the electors in the district represented by the honorable member for Oxley, and in the Brisbane electorate represented, by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Macdonald-paterson.</inline> The latter district has 3,443 electors in excess of the quota, whereas in Oxley there are only 1,583 in excess. Of the whole of the electorates there are only three which do not comeeither within the maximum or the minimum. The electors in the Moreton division come within the maximum, and there areonly three electorates which would be really affected by our adhering to the present divisions instead of adopting those proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall.</inline> Those which would not beaffected are Wide Bay, Herbert, Capricornia, Moreton, Darling Downs, and Kennedy. In the Maranoa district the number of voters is below the minimum but the electors there ha ve no reason to complain, because their votes possess their full value. It is. significant that when the later divisions proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> were advertised, most of the northern public journals werein favour of them. It is true they declared that the divisions might have been improved upon ; but no very serious complaints were urged, and it was thought that under thecircumstances' they might well be accepted. For instance, a leading newspaper in the- electorate of Capricornia was in favour of them, and so also were several journals in my own electorate. The great outcry which is alleged to have been made was confined to a few , persons who were particularly interested in the matter, and who desired the electorates to beso arranged that they could "dish" the Labour party. That was their expressed desire. But the most significant feature of the whole proceedings was the change ,of front made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall. His</inline> original map was certainly an improvement upon the present one, although the divisions then prepared could not be highly commended. I am convinced that they- would not have been indorsed by the House, because he- did not attach sufficient weight to considerations of accessibility and community of interest. Forty-eight hours after that map was published <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall,</inline> for some reason or other, saw fit to withdraw it, and to issue an entirely different map. I desire to know what were the reasons underlying his action. Possibly the Minister' can inform us. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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>- Cook. - The Minister says that the Commissioner was interfered with. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<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>- I wish to tell the House what I have heard, upon very good authority, although my authority is not a Minister. Fortunately, there are other avenues of information open to honorable members, otherwise we might sometimes be kept completely in the dark upon most important matters. I have been informed, upon good authority, that on the morning after the original map was published, the Premier of Queensland and the Minister for Railways visited <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> McDowall's office and actually bounced him into withdrawing it, and substituting for it the electoral boundaries which he now proposes. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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>- That does not say much for the Commissioner. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<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>- It says nothing at all for that officer. I challenge the Minister to inform the House whether my statement is accurate. J believe that he has the information which will confirm what I say. If that be so, I ask him to lay it upon the table of the House. If my information is accurate, every honorable member ought to vote in favour of the rejection of the Commissioner's recommendations, if only to evidence their disapprobation of the action of certain State Ministers. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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>- If that statement can be substantiated every honorable member will. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<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>- I think that we should pass what is practically a vote of censure upon the Commissioner for having allowed himself to be dominated by State Ministers in that way. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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>- Why did not the Minister protect his officer ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<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>- That is a question for the Minister to answer. I trust that the information for which I have asked will be forthcoming. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. L.</inline>E. GROOM (Darling Downs).I intend to support the proposal submitted by the Government. I do so, because I believe that the Electoral Act was intended to confer upon this House a true revising power. It was never meant that that power should be used for party or political purposes by either side of the House. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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 this a revising power which we are asked to exercise ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3851</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>- It is a power of rejection which we should' exercise. Regarding the proposed new electorates in Queensland, I do not think it can be said that the Ministry desire their rejection upon any personal grounds whatever. To my mind there is ample justification for rejecting the whole of the electoral divisions proposed in that State, because they do not constitute the best scheme that has been submitted to the people. If we take into consideration the conditions laid down in the Act in reference to community or diversity. of interest, means of communication, geographical position, and existing boundaries, I hold that the second scheme proposed by the Commissioner is not the best one possible. I have in my hand the first map of the new Federal electorates which were proposed by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr McDowall.</inline> That map was published in the <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane</inline><inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> upon the 11th of June last. If honorable members will look at it they will at once realize the tremendous changes that have been effected in it, especially in the electorates of Kennedy, Herbert, Maranoa, Capricornia, and Darling Downs. The boundaries recommended in the electorates of Brisbane, Oxley, and Moreton are practically unaltered. The remaining districts, however, have been completely changed for some reason or other which is not patent upon the face of this report. With a view to ascertain what had brought about this change, I consulted the files of the <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane Courier.</inline> From' these I gather that the original scheme recommended by the Commissioner was published in that newspaper upon the 11th of June of the present year. The whole of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> McDowall's report was printed, and that officer declared that his desire was to place the scheme before the public at the earliest possible moment. Upon the very next morning however, and before the scheme could possibly have reached the electorates of Kennedy, Maranoa, and Darling Downs, a paragraph was published in the journal to which I have referred stating that there was sharp criticism in political circles of the scheme proposed, and the paragraph continued - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>It was believed that the total results of his efforts would be to give enormously increased chances to Labour candidates: </para>
</quote>
<para>Then, speaking of the electorate of Herbert, the' <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> added - </para>
<quote>
<para>It had been anticipated that the other party had an excellent chance of taking the Herbert from the Labour candidate on account of the strong vote in the neighbourhood of Townsville, but this is all changed from the number of State Labour electoral districts admitted to it. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">If the House rejects the scheme submitted by. the Commissioner, and we are compelled to adopt the electoral divisions made by the State Legislature some three years ago, we shall revert to conditions under which, according to the <inline font-style="italic">Courier,</inline> the party which is opposed to labour will be given a distinct advantage. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PATERSON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Mr A Paterson</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable and learned member himself believe that statement ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</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>- I will express my own belief presently. I am now dealing with the historical aspect of this matter. The <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> paragraph declares that, according to the divisions made by the State Legislature, the Labour party will lose some seats, and complains that the divisions originally submitted by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall</inline> were bad, because they .gave such an excellent chance of success to the candidates of the Labour party, It continues - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>Moreover, whatever strength there was at Townsville will now be counter-balanced by the strong Labour vote at Charters Towers in the case of the Kennedy division, into which- it has been thrown. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The same newspaper finds fault with the inclusion of Mount Morgan in the Maranoa division, but of the other divisions it says that "little criticism is offered." Upon the very day succeeding the publication of the Commissioner's original map this criticism appeared in a public journal which is published in the capital of Queensland. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNJ</name.id>
<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>- This is very serious. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</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>- That statement was published on the 12th June. The next statement appeared in the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> on the 18th June. On that date this newspaper published an interview with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall,</inline> in which the Commissioner explained the position taken up by him. He justified his division, and pointed out the reasons why it should be retained. On .the 19th June the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> published a leader in which it found fault with the scheme, on the ground that it showed a want of regard for the community of interest. It then went on to say that the matter of means of communication - is no doubt important, but affords no justification for the wholesale amalgamation of interests such as is to be found iu the new electorate of Herbert. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>It considered that a neglect of the sugar, mining, pastoral, and other industries was shown, and urged that special representation should be given to the tropical agricultural interests. It said - </para>
<quote>
<para>While the sugar industry itself may be voiceless unless we insure a victory in the Wide Bay electorate. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I am not aware that it is voiceless at thepresent time, but the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> maintains that it is. It went on to say that - </para>
<quote>
<para>The present division of Herbert would be <inline font-style="italic">a.</inline> disfranchisement of the old electorate as originally defined for the purposes of the first Federal election. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">It then proceeded to raise objection to the Kennedy and Maranoa divisions, and stated that - </para>
<quote>
<para>The directions plainly given by the Federal Electoral Act and the electoral divisions, clearly marked out by the State Government, have been, alike repudiated, with the result of creating dissatisfaction everywhere outside of the SouthEastern electorates. It is therefore gratifyingto learn that the Commissioner has stayed his. hand, and that there is apparently some prospect of amended boundaries being devised before the electoral maps are exhibited in the various, divisions iis required b}7 law. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Immediately after the publication of this leader, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> McDowall's alterations cameout, and, on the 25th June, the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> published an article expressing its appreciation of the changes that had been made. - </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</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>- Evidently the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> is taking an active interest in this matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3852</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>- The <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> simply recorded the historical sequence of events. It is well able to take care of itself. It has a right to fight as it thinks fit, and I am not making any suggestions in regard, to it. But when we come as n judicial body to consider this matter, and to determine whether we should or should not accept this distribution, I contend that we should have the various stages of each event placed in their order before us, sothat we may justly appreciate the significance of the work which we are called upon, to perform. The <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline> plainly showsthat the first agitation in Queensland with respect to the divisons; was based, not on the contention that the spirit of the Act hod been violated, but on the ground of political considerations. I contend that that fact is clearly and manifestly proved, and that it was never contemplated that we should pay any regard to the question of political considerations when dealing with this matter. The Minister for Trade and Customs was right when he said that so far as the Queensland distribution was concerned, a great variation in the population of the scattered districts had been occasioned by the existence of the drought. I shall give some official figures in respect to this matter which should prove of interest to honorable members. They were published in the <inline font-style="italic">Courier on</inline> the 24th of June, after the revised distribution had appeared, and the.police returns had been received. The honorable member for Maranoa will bear me out in saying that the drought started in Queensland about the year 1896, and continued with increasing intensity until recently. It is well known that, after it had been in existence for several years, great fluctuations took place in the population of the State. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXO</name.id>
<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>- When I was up North I found that whole stations had been abandoned - that there was not a man or a hoof on them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</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>- That statement is borne out by the official figures. I shall not deal with the changes of population from the inception of the drought, but will take the census returns for 1901, and ask the House to compare them with the police collections. Let us take, for example, the figures relating to the electorate of Capricornia. According to the census returns of 1901, the adult population entitled to be on the rolls for the electorate of Capricornia, as defined in the last report made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDowall,</inline> was 26,209, while the police collections in December last showed a decrease of 4,681. I am not dealing with the time when the population existed largely in the western parts of Queensland, but' I am taking the figures for the place in respect of which I can obtain reliable statistics. The police collections in December showed ' that the adult population of the electorate was 21,528, or a decrease of 4,681 electors. In the Herbert electorate there was a total decrease of 2,193; in the electorate of Kennedy a decrease of 914; in the electorate of Maranoa a decrease of 2,179 ; and in the electorate of Wide Bay a decrease of 1,932. 8 t </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KIRWAN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kirwan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Were the police returns complete? Were they as good as the census returns? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</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>- I think so. In my opinion the Commissioner of Police and all the officers under him are entitled to every credit. I believe that they .did their best to efficiently carry out their work. I made particular enquiries so far as my own electorate was concerned, and I found that the police had done excellent work. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</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>- Do the police returns for the other electorates show an increase <inline font-style="italic">t</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</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>- There is an increase in some cases. The return also shows that about 12,000 electors have left their usual place of residence and are missing. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KIRWAN, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kirwan</name>
</talker>
<para>- How do the complete census returns for Queensland compare with the police returns <inline font-style="italic">1</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3853</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>