/
19040315_reps_2_18.xml
7389 lines (7389 loc) · 481 KB
/
19040315_reps_2_18.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>1904-03-15</date>
<parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>488</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>House ofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1904-03-15</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>took the chair at 2.30 p.m., land read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ELECTION PETITION</title>
<page.no>488</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">Maloney v. McEacharn. </para>
<para class="block">The Clerk announced the receipt from the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Australia, under section 202 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, of a copy of the following order of the Court of Disputed Returns : - </para>
<quote>
<para>In the High Court of Australia. </para>
<para>Court of Disputed Returns; </para>
<para class="block">In the matter of the Election of a Member of the House of Representatives for the Electoral Division' of Melbourne, inthe State of Victoria. </para>
<para class="block">Before His Honour the Chief Justice, </para>
<para class="block">Thursday, the tenth day of March, 1904. </para>
<para class="block">This Petition coming on for trial the fourth day of March, 1904, and. this day upon reading the Petition of William Maloney, filed the fifth day of February, 1904, and the appearance of <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Malcolm</inline> Donald McEacharn, who was returned as a Member of the House of Representatives at the above-mentioned election, and upon hearing the evidence of William Augustin Newman, taken upon his oral examination, and upon reading the several exhibits put in evidence, and upon hearing what was alleged by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Gaunson,</inline> of Counsel for the said William Maloney, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mitchell,</inline> of Counsel for the said <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Malcolm</inline> Donald McEacharn, this Court doth declare that the said <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Malcolm</inline> Donald McEacharn was not duty elected at the said election, and this Court doth further declare that the said election was absolutely void, and this Court doth not think fit to make any Order as to the costs of the said Petition, except that the sum of Fifty pounds deposited. with the Principal Registrar by the said William Maloney at the time of filing his said Petition be returned to him or to his solicitor, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Andrew</inline> McGregor Lonie. </para>
<para>By the Court, (l.S.) J. W. O'Halloran, </para>
<para>Deputy Registrar. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ISSUE OF WRIT</title>
<page.no>488</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>488</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>- The High Court having declared the election held on 16th December last for the electoral division of" Melbourne, in the State of Victoria, to be absolutely void, I shall this day issue a writ for a new election for the said division. The dates appointed in the writ will be approximately as follows : - Date of nomination, Wednesday, 23rd March; date of polling, Wednesday, 30th, or Thursday, 31st March; return to writ, on or before 19th April, 1904. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>DEATH OF SIR EDWARD BRADDON</title>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- In pursuance of the order of the House, I forwarded to Lady Braddon the resolutions passed on the first day of the session, and her ladyship has sent me the following reply: - " Treglith," Leith, Thursday, 10.3.04. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Lady Braddon, on behalf of her family and herself, desires to convey through the Honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives, her deep appreciation of the honour paid to the memory of her late husband, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Edward</inline> Braddon, in the resolution of the House at its first sitting, and heartfelt thanks to those who so kindly moved and seconded and so unanimously agreed to the same. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>S.S. ARAM AC</title>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>BALLAARAT, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for External Affairs</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>- The following telegram has been sent to me : - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Following just received from Brisbane. The <inline font-style="italic">Aramac</inline> has been safely towed into Hervey Bay, near Maryborough, with the captain and nine men aboard. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PETITION</title>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<type>petition</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYT</name.id>
<electorate>KOOYONG, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNOX, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KNOX</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to present a pe tition from the president and vicepresident and executive committee of the Central Council of Employers of Australia, praying the House not to pass the proposed Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That the petition be received and read. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4R</name.id>
<electorate>BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</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 no objection to the reading of this particular petition ; but I should like to know whether we are to continue the practice of last session of allowing all petitions to be read ? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- The practice last Parliament was to allow the first of a series of petitionsto be read, but not to read others of the same tenor. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- In some of the Parliaments of the States, the practice is, not to read petitions, but to have them printed and circulated. The reading of a petition takes up the time of the House unduly, and as, after all, any honorable mernber who desires to make himself really cognizant of its contents must afterwards peruse it in print, no really useful purpose is served. I think that if it were understood thatno petition should be read, our action in objecting to the reading of this petition could not be considered invidious. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNOX, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Knox</name>
</talker>
<para>- Are all petitions printed? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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 believe so, whether they are or are not read. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<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>- A uniform practice is desirable. I understand that petitions are not printed in every case, but, as every petition is laid upon the table of the House, any honorable member who is particularly interested has an opportunity of having its contents published in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline> The time of the whole House should not be occupied in listening to the reading of petitions of which honorable members do not propose to take any further account. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- Could not the motion be made that the petition be printed ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- I think the Printing Committee decide. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- While it was customary last Parliament to move that a petition be received and read, it was also my practice, uponthe request of any one honorable member that I should do so, to put first the question "that the petition be received," which might or might not be carried, and, afterwards, if the petition were received, the question "that the petition be read." All petitions, whether read or not, are passed on to the Printing Committee, and it is for the members of that body, in the exercise of their discretion, to determine whether a petition, or any part of it, shall be printed. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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 understand that the Printing Committee make a recommendation? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- Yes; but so far as I remember, their recommendation has in every case been indorsed by the House. It is not competent for an honorable member to move that a petition be printed unless he declares his intention to take action in the matter, our practice being governed by standing order 91, which says - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>No member shall move that a petition be printed unless he intends to take action upon it, and informs the House thereof, and that such action will be taken within fourteen days. </para>
</quote>
<para>If the honorable member for Bland desires it, I shall put the questions separately. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KNOX, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Knox</name>
</talker>
<para>-i have no objection. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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 wish to read this petition in print, so I shall not object to its being read. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>489</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>- The question of printing is not involved now. I will put the questions separately. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Questions resolved in the affirmative. </para>
<para>Petition received. </para>
<para>The Clerk proceeding to read the petition, </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> I rise to a point of order. I desire to ask if the document now being read by the Clerk is a petition or a compendium of arguments against the Bill. It appears to me that the employers, having failed to secure the election of their representatives to Parliament, are now seeking to bring their views before the House by petition. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</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>- So far as the petition has been read, there is nothing in it to which exception can be taken. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Petition read. </para>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MELBOURNE ELECTION: POSTAL VOTES</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPM</name.id>
<electorate>CORINELLA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCAY, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr McCAY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that he is issuing instructions that no new names must be added to the rolls for the Melbourne electorate upon claims, and, if so, whether he is thoroughly satisfied that he is not directly infringing the provisions of section 57 of the Electoral Act? Before taking such action, will he make perfectly sure of his legal position, seeing that it is not desirable that another petition against the validity of the election should be presented ? I may explain that this phase of the question came under the consideration of the House when the Electoral Bill was being discussed in Committee, and that I then drew attention to it. On that occasion the Prime Minister simply informed me that the Bill was no doubt ambiguous in that connexion. That was all the satisfaction which I derived from him. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate>SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- In reply to the honorable and learned member, I wish to say that I have issued no instructions whatever. Of course, I shall have much pleasure in inquiring into the matter. Speaking off-hand, however-- </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPM</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCAY, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr McCay</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do not speak off-hand. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable and learned member prefers to ventilate the matter here rather than to speak to me outside. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fisher</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a public matter, and this is the proper place in which' to ventilate it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- The question would have received just as much attention had the honorable and learned member approached me in my office. I am of opinion that those persons who are lodging claims to vote will not be able to do so unless their claims have been approved of by the Revision Court. That is the system which operates in all the States, and if it be found that the approval of claims by. the Revision Courts is not necessary, I fail to see the use of those tribunals. However,. I will closely look into the matter at once. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate>NORTH SYDNEY, 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">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr DUGALD THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wishto ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Chief Electoral Officer has submitted a report in reference to certain alleged illegalities in connexion with the recent elections ? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Forrest</name>
</talker>
<para>- To what does the honorable member refer? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate>NORTH SYDNEY, 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">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr DUGALD THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I refer principally to the witnessing of postal votes. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Forrest</name>
</talker>
<para>- He has done so. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KW6</name.id>
<electorate>NORTH SYDNEY, 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">THOMSON, Dugald</name>
<name role="display">Mr DUGALD THOMSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Minister be good enough to lay his report upon the table of the House ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Forrest</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall have very much pleasure in doing so. It has already been given to the press. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NATURALIZATION ACT</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0Y</name.id>
<electorate>MORETON, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WILKINSON, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr WILKINSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to ask the Minister representingthe Attorney General whether any fees are chargeable either on application for, or granting of, certificates of naturalization under the Commonwealth Naturalization Act ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<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>- No fees are charged; the administration of the Act in question does not rest with the Attorney-General's Department, but with the Department of External Affairs. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WIMMERA ELECTION</title>
<page.no>490</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate>ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will lay upon the table of the House the opinion of the Attorney-General, which is apparently, at variance with the judgment of the High Court, in reference to the recent Wimmera election ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>490</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<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>- With the consent of my honorable colleague, I desire to say that I have obtained from the Attorney-General's Department a statement in reference to the report of the judgment. It reads as follows : - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Argus</inline> quotes the following passage from the Chief Justice's judgment : - "At the adjourned poll the returning officer was not entitled to do more than put the prescribed questions, and if an elector not enrolled for the polling place in question made the declaration in Form' Q,' the returning officer was bound to receive his vote." </para>
</quote>
<para>That extract, severed from its context, gives a misleading idea as to the effect of the Chief Justice's judgment. The <inline font-style="italic">Argus</inline> omits to quote the passage immediately following (as reported yesterday in its own report of the decision), as follows : - " If the man was not entitled to vote there, the vote was bad. But the returning officer could not make the inquiries; that would be for the court to inquire into. If there were a sufficient number of such voters not entitled to vote, the election might have been vitiated. In the present case no such difficulty arose, because that class of persons had their votes refused. The returning officer, in refusing them, was technically wrong, but the court could not disturb the election because the returning officer did something technically wrong, but which led to right results." </para>
<para>There were only 95 names on the Ni-Ni roll, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hirsch</inline> was nearly 200 votes behind, so that the polling of all those voters could not have altered the result of the election. </para>
<para>The Attorney-General gave no opinion on the subject, being out of Victoria when the question arose. </para>
<para>No opinion to the effect stated was given at all. </para>
<para>The returning officer having asked the Electoral Office for advice as to whether he should accept " Q " declarations at the adjourned poll, an opinion was obtained from the Secretary, AttorneyGeneral's Department, who advised that though, in his opinion, only persons enrolled for Ni-Ni would be entitled to vote, yet persons making the declaration " Q " might be allowed to vote, their votes being taken at a different booth and kept separate, in order that, in the event of a petition, the Court of Disputed Returns might be able to deal with the matter. </para>
<para class="block">It will thus be seen that, if the course advised by the secretary to the Attorney-General's Department had been followed, there would have been no question in either case. All the votes would have been taken, and the doubtful ones would have been set aside, so that the Court of Disputed Returns could have settled the matter without delay. That that course was not pursued was due not to any action on the part of the Department, but to the choice made by the returning officer himself, in the undoubted exercise of his own discretion. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPERS</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<type>papers</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers: - </para>
<para>Transfers of amounts approved by the GovernorGeneral in Council, financial year 1903-4, under the Audit Act. </para>
<para>Regulations under the Electoral Act, dated 19th October, and11th, 21st, and 26th November, 1903. </para>
<para>Chief Electoral Officer's reply to certain remarks of the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of <inline font-style="italic">Maloney</inline> v. <inline font-style="italic">McEacharn.</inline></para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>AUSTRALIAN RIFLEMEN AT BISLEY</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<para>Whether the Government is willing to provide the funds necessary to cover the bare expenses (estimated at about£2,000) of sending a representative team of Australian riflemen to compete this year at Bisley for the Kolapore Cup, which has been held by Australia for the past two years, and to take part also in the Great International Match to be held in America for the Palm Trophy. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<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>- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows : - </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The Government do not intend to ask Parliament to provide funds for this purpose. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PATENT OFFICE APPOINTMENTS</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KED</name.id>
<electorate>MOIRA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KENNEDY, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr KENNEDY</name>
</talker>
<para>asked theMinister for Home Affairs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<para>Whether, in making appointments to the vacancies in the Federal Patent Office, as published in the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Gazette</inline> of 20th February, 1904, officers in the State Public Service will be on an equality with any other applicants for such positions; if not, in what order , will applicants be chosen, as from the Federal Public Service, the State Civil Services, and applicants outside of such services. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir JOHN FORREST</name>
</talker>
<para>- In reply to the honorable member, I beg to state that - </para>
</talk.start>
<para>For the vacancies in the Professional Division officers will, if qualified for the particular work of this office, be selected in the order of their merit as under - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a)">
<para>Officers in the Commonwealth Service; </para>
</item>
<item label="(b)">
<para>Officers in the State Service; </para>
</item>
<item label="(c)">
<para>Persons from outside the Service. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>For the Clerical and General Division vacancies the same procedure will be followed, but persons outside the Commonwealth or State Service are not eligible for appointment unless they have qualified by passing the requisite examination provided for under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH : ADDRESS IN REPLY</title>
<page.no>491</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from nth March <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 488), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mauger</inline> - </para>
<para>That the Address be agreed to by the House. </para>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. SYDNEY</inline>SMITH (Macquarie).I am sure that honorable members were delighted to listen on Friday to the speech delivered by the right honorable member for Adelaide. Newspaper reports had led us to believe that he was in such a bad state of health that he would be unable to go through the ordeal of making even a short speech on the Address in Reply, but we were pleased to find that he was able, not only to undertake that task, but to succeed in occupying the attention of honorable members during an address extending over a period of three and a half hours. I join issue with much that the right honorable member said, believing, as I do, that many of his arguments were based upon false principles ; but we are all seeking, according to our lights, to do our best for the advancement of the Commonwealth, and we should not allow any little differences of opinion to interfere with that friendly feeling which I am satisfied exists amongst honorable members. During the recent elections the right honorable member for Adelaide, as well as the Prime Minister, joined issue with the freetraders of Australia, as to the progress made by New South Wales under the free-trade policy. On Friday last the right honorable member quoted statistics previously put forward by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. B.</inline> R. Wise, Acting Premier for New South Wales, relative to the increase which had taken place in the exports of that State, those exports being for the most part to other parts of the Commonwealth. He might reasonably have gone a little further, and have comparted the progress made by New South Wales under a policy of free-trade with that made by Victoria under a policy of protection. In opening the election campaign at Ballarat the Prime Minister, in order to please many of his supporters, referred to what he declared to be the decrease of population which had taken place in New South Wales, and asserted that under the freetrade policy of the leader of the Opposition, New South Wales had lost1,882 persons within a period of some four or five years. Had he been fair to the mother State he would have looked up the statistics, which show that, as a matter of fact, 2,400 Chinese left New South Wales during the period referred to ; and that, apart from those departures, there was actually an increase of population. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fisher</name>
</talker>
<para>- Where did the Chinese </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr SYDNEY SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- They left New South Wales. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</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>- A large number of them went to Queensland. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr SYDNEY SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- As a matter of fact a great many of them left Australia. On the occasion in question the Prime Minister also made reference to the increase of population which had taken place in certain other States, and was then asked by an elector "What about Victoria." I propose to reply to that question, and to show how Victoria fared under her protectionist policy. Apart from the departure of Chinese from New South Wales during the four years in which the leader of the Opposition controlled the affairs of that State, there was an actual increase in population, while Victoria lost not 1,882 persons, but 82,233 during the same time. The Prime Minister did not inform the electors of Ballarat of that fact. From 1894 to 1901 New South Wales lost 3,412 persons - mostly Chinese - whilst the loss of population in Victoria amounted to 105,137. From 1 89 1 to 1902 - both years inclusive - Victoria's population decreased by no less than 130,063, whilst New South Wales during the same period gained 16,244. The leakage of population, so far as Victoria is concerned, is still going on. The actual loss suffered by Victoria in 1902 was 13,716, whereas New South Wales gained 6,902. Victoria parted with the policy of freetrade in 1866, and entered upon her new career with a population of 636,982 persons against a population of 428,813 in New South Wales. It will thus be seen that Victoria had an excellent start of the mother State - a lead of over 208,000. But after thirty-five years' experience of protection what position does she occupy in contrast with New South Wales ? In 1900 the population of Victoria had increased to 1,197,000, whereas the population of New South Wales had increased for the same period to 1,364,000. An increase of 167,000 in favour of the latter is sufficient, I think, to show the Prime Minister that he was altogether wrong at Ballarat when he endeavoured to persuade his constituents that we in New South Wales had been going back under our policy of free-trade. We had, practically, always a policy of free-trade in our State, except for t wo or three brief periods until the Commonweal th policy came into force. Let me apply mother test. It has been stated by honorable members opposite all through Victoria that New South Wales had been living on her and revenue. Now, while Victoria had alienated 42 per cent. of her lands, New South Wales had alienated only 24 per cent. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARPENTER, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Carpenter</name>
</talker>
<para>- Consider the respective reas of the two States. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>492</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Sydney</name>
<name role="display">Mr SYDNEY SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Proportion- a tely, we have additional expense on ac- c ount of the larger area. It wouldpay us better to be without some immense tracts, because the cost of administration far exceeds the value of any advantage derived from their possession. Victoria also had a very good start with her gold-mines. Altogether she obtained from her mines £128,000,000 more than New South Wales obtained for all minerals - a very good start,I think - and she had that amount to play with under her policy of protection. Again, as regards loan expenditure, I know that in Victoria the press has time after time pointed out that we have been living on loan money ; that a large amount of employment has been given to the workers by reason of the large expenditure incurred out of loan account. What are the facts? The expenditure on water supply, water conservation works, and under municipal loans in Victoria is separated from other expenditure in the books, and honorable members have omitted, when quoting loan expenditure for Victoria to mention the different kinds of loan expenditure. They omitted to say that there was a loan expenditure for railways, a loan expenditure for water works arid water conservation works generally ; they separated all these items and only showed expenditure on railways in contrast with the expenditure in New South Wales. In the latter State, however, all the expenditures are lumped together. Whether the money is borrowed for municipal purposes, for water supply works, or for railways or tramways, it is all lumped together. How do the expenditures of the two States come out when they are placed on the same basis? Up to 1900 - practically the last year of free-trade - New South Wales had expended £51 4s. per head of the population, whereas in the same period Victoria had expended £54 2s., showing that as far as loan expenditure is concerned Victoria has also had an advantage over New South Wales. Again, let me take the deposits in the savings banks. In 1891 the deposits in Victoria exceeded those in New South Wales by , £372,000, whereas in 1902 New South Wales had £2,080,000 more than had Victoria. In 1891 deposits in banks, including Building Societies, amounted to £43,000,000, in New South Wales, and £50,000,000 in Victoria, or £7,000,000 less in New South Wales than Victoria; whilst in 1902-3 New South Wales deposits exceeded those in Victorian banks, &c, by £5,500,000. In 1861 Victoria commenced with an excess of trade of £14,000,000 over New South Wales, whereas in 1902 the latter has an excess of trade of £13,000,000 over the former. The export of domestic produce is, I think, a good test to apply. In 1861 the exports of domestic produce from Victoria were £5,580,000 more than from New South Wales, but in 1901 the export of domestic produce from New South Wales was £5,700,000 more than from Victoria. Is that any evidence of the great advantage conferred by protection in. Victoria? The Prime Minister endeavoured to show the people of Ballarat that they had prospered under protection, and that the people of New South Wales had gone back. I maintain that the figures I have quoted disclose a very different state of affairs. My honorable friends opposite have time after time pointed out the great advantages of protection to the factories. From 1889 to 1899 the male hands in Victorian factories had decreased by 5,064, while the female hands had increased by no less than 7,702, the total increase in the period being 2,638. In free-trade New South Wales, open to the competition of the world, during the same period the male employes had increased by 6,338, and the female employes by 4,316 ; or an increase of1 0,654, the male increase being the greater. It is well known that, owing to the low wages paid here to women, the men were driven out of the factories and women put on in their place. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>493</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>- Which 'factories were they ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>493</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L2I</name.id>
<electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>