/
19130828_reps_5_70.xml
6939 lines (6939 loc) · 453 KB
/
19130828_reps_5_70.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>1913-08-28</date>
<parliament.no>5</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>645</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House of Representatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1913-08-28</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>645</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSITION OF THE- GOVERNMENT</title>
<page.no>645</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>645</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KK9</name.id>
<electorate>BASS, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JENSEN, Jens</name>
<name role="display">Mr JENSEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- In view of the fact that the Government has lost control of business in another place, and the Socialistic party having, against the wishes of the Government, appointed a Select Committee to inquire into an administrative act of the Prime Minister, namely, the dismissal of a public servant, will the Prime Minister say whether the Cabinet has considered its position, and, if so, with what result? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>645</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- Under ordinary circumstances, I should ask my honorable friend to give notice of the question, and I have risen only to correct his facts. I would not for the world deprive him of all he can make out of them, but they should first be correctly stated. We have not lost control of the other House - we never had it. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>FORMATION OF IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT</title>
<page.no>646</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate>CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a statement attributed by this morning's newspapers to General Hertzog, a former member of the Botha Cabinet in South Africa, who is reported to have said that the coming question is the formation of an Imperial Parliament in which South Africa will have one representative for every sixty given to England ? Has the Prime Minister any information from the British authorities about a movement for the establishment of an Imperial Parliament of that kind ? If he has any information on the subject, will he give it to honorable members; and, if it is in the nature of correspondence, will he lay the papers on the table? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have no information on the subject. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>COCKBURN SOUND NAVAL BASE</title>
<page.no>646</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask leave of the House to reply to a question put to me last night, during the adjournment discussion, by the honorable member for Fremantle. This is the information that has been furnished to me by the Minister of Defence - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>In reference to the question asked in your House yesterday as to the dismissal of surveyors employed at Cockburn Sound, I am informed that no information as to these particular dismissals is to hand, and information is now being sought by telegram from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fanstone,</inline> who is at present at Cockburn Sound. </para>
<para>Meanwhile it is assumed that the surveyors in question have completed the work for which they were employed, and it naturally followed that their services were no longer required. </para>
<para>If the information now being sought confirms this, the word " dismissal " is hardly accurate. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PERSONAL EXPLANATION</title>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<type>personal explanation</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to make a personal explanation regarding a charge repeated against me last night by the honorable member for Ballarat. He accused me of having slandered Australia by certain statements made in an interview concerning our electoral system. I have already denied that I made such state ments; but last night, to the accompaniment of the cheers of honorable members., according to the report, the honorable member for Ballarat refused to accept my denial. I am not concerned with the honorable member's attitude, but I am desirous that the facts shall be known. The following- is a full report of the published interview : - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline>observed tonight, in a special interview which he kindly accorded me, that the Labour Ministers are obviously bad losers, but had to recognise that they had been defeated at the polls, and accept the consequences of the electors' decision. The Liberal party was clearly in a difficult position, and the only satisfactory solution would be a further appeal to the country, which would not be long delayed. In the House of Representatives <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> said business could only be conducted by the casting vote of the Speaker, but even if he had a substantial majority the overwhelming hostile -majority in the Senate would ultimately bring about a deadlock. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> referred to the unsatisfactory condition of the electoral rolls, and said that the new voting system was open to grave abuse. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That is all I said ; and I have a confirmation of that from the writer of the interview, which I wish to read to the House - </para>
<quote>
<para>I see that my cable to the <inline font-style="italic">Morning Post,</inline> on June 12th, was made an excuse for an attack on you during the course of the present debate. I find that' I have made you say nothing more terrible than that the electoral laws of the Commonwealth were open to grave abuse. The rest of the message was, of course, my own. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Prime Minister has read a portion of a letter. I claim that, under the Standing Orders, that letter has become the possession of the House, and should be handed to the Clerk. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</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>- Subject to correction, I know of no standing order which compels a member who has read a portion of a personal letter addressed to him to lay it on the table. The Prime Minister, I understand, read only a part of the letter. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Frazer</name>
</talker>
<para>- How do you know that, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker?</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</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>- Because he said so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Frazer</name>
</talker>
<para>- You say that you spoke subject to correction. My impression is that the rule stated by the honorable member for Capricornia has always been observed. I submit that any document quoted by an honorable member becomes the property of the House, and I ask for a definite ruling on this point? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>646</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>- For the moment I was not quite sure of the precise terms of the standing order, but I had in mind that there waa a distinction made between a private communication and a public document. That is why I said I spoke subject to correction. Standing order 317 says - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to be of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for and made a public document. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The only question that arises now is whether the document from which the Prime Minister quoted was a private communication, or a document of such a nature as was contemplated under the standing order. . </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- He did not say it was a private document: he said it was a letter. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I took it to be a private personal letter, because the Prime Minister said he had received a letter from the person to whom he had granted the interview, and who was responsible for the article. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Frazer</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is a great thing to have a friend at court, is it not? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable member for Kalgoorlie to withdraw that statement ; it is a reflection on the Chair. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr Frazer</name>
</talker>
<para>- I withdraw it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINLAYSON, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Finlayson</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is obvious that the letter read by the Prime Minister is a reply to a request or intimation from the Prime Minister that he might have information in regard to a matter already made public. Does not that make the letter .connecting the honorable member with that matter, to all intents and purposes, a public document? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</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>- Of my own knowledge, I am not in a position to say whether the letter is a private communication or a public document, for I have not read it. The Prime Minister alone is the judge of that. The letter is his property. Every honorable member at some time or other receives private letters containing references to public matters, and if once we admit the principle that any private letter received by an honorable member, from which he has quoted some portion, should become public property, honorable members generally will find themselves placed in a very embarrassing position, which may involve their correspondents in serious trouble. I do not think it is the wish of the House to resort to that practice. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</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>- I do not wish to disagree with the ruling, but if this sort of thing is permitted we shall land ourselves in a difficulty. It will be possible for members to make all sorts of slanderous statements about other members by this means. An honorable member may even go so far as to manufacture a letter, and read it in the House </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<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>- Are there men like that in this House ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</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>- I do not know of any, but I know that the honorable member has made statements he is not too proud of. However, my point is that if this course is permitted we leave ourselves open to abuse of a character which will not reflect on the credit of the House. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJE</name.id>
<electorate>FLINDERS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr W H IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The standing order quoted appears to be merely an embodiment of a practice that has for long prevailed in the House of Commons, and is set out fully on page 338 of <inline font-style="italic">May,</inline> as follows - </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<quote>
<para>Another rule, or principle of debate, may be here added. A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to that rule of evidence,^ in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested ; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in. It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited, ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interests. Thi same rule, however, cannot be held to apply lo private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May. 1865, the Attorney-General, on being asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ferrand</inline> if he would lay upon the table .1 written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day in answering a question relative to the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, replied that he had made a statement to the House upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord R- Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced, but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only. </para>
</quote>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I was just about to quote what the Attorney-General has quoted in support of the attitude I have taken up. Honorable members will see that my ruling is supported by wellestablished precedent. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<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>- I deeply regret the turn this matter has taken. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>647</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>- Does the honorable member rise to make a personal explanation? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<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>- Yes. I would not have quoted from the letter had I thought the slightest exception would be taken to it. I thought it simply confirmed the statement I read from the report itself, and that the House would be glad to have the confirmation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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>- Was the honorable member reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Morning Post</inline> as having said those words? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSEPH COOK</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. The report makes it clear that I did not. Nothing could be clearer. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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>- Then that is all right. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<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>- But, in addition, I bring this confirmation from the interviewer himself, and I thought the House would be glad to receive it; otherwise, I would not have quoted it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I should be glad to explain that, in asking for the production of that letter, it was not with the desire to prevent the Prime Minister disclaiming having uttered the words he was charged with, because I have a copy of the <inline font-style="italic">Morning Post.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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 honorable member is now making a statement, and not a personal explanation which can only be made with reference to some misrepresentation to which the honorable member may have been subjected. He is proceeding to make a general statement with reference to a matter already dealt with, and which is no longer open for discussion because I have already given my ruling. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- I was misrepresented by an interjection from the Honorary Minister, that an attempt was being made to prevent the Prime Minister- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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>- Will the honorable member resume his seat. He is doing what I told him he was not permitted to do. He cannot make a statement without the leave of the House. He is not making a personal explanation, but is making a statement of a general character, which, by the rules of the House, cannot be permitted. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would like to be allowed to make a personal explanation, because I believe I have been misrepresented. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kelly</name>
</talker>
<para>- On a point of order. The honorable member bases his reason for a personal explanation upon the assumption that I made some statement I did not make. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- You interjected. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kelly</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not interject to that effect or anything like that effect, and the honorable member has no rip bt; to base his personal explanation upon some statement I did not make. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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 honorable member for Capricornia can make a personal explanation if he thinks he has been misrepresented in regard to anything. If that is what he proposes to do he is in order, but he will not be in order in going beyond that. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not wish to prevent the Prime Minister making his denial, because I have seen the extract, and believe that what lie says is quite correct. The honorable member for Ballarat, who, because, perhaps, he is not a pressman- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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>- What is the misre-presentation to which the honorable member for Capricornia desires to refer? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The impression conveyed by honorable members opposite that I have endeavoured to stop the Prime Minister making his statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kelly</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Prime Minister had made the statement before the honorable member rose. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- My desire is to get the name of the pressman who has slandered Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRD</name.id>
<electorate>BALLAARAT, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGRATH</name>
</talker>
<para>- I regret very much that the Prime Minister was not present last night when I dealt with this matter. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</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>- Does the honorable member desire to make a personal explanation ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr MCGRATH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. I do not think that I dealt at all unfairly with the Prime Minister when I read to the House last night a portion of the report. I showed that a special reporter had interviewed the honorable gentleman, and in the interview, as reported, there is nothing to show where the reporter's own comments begin and where the remarks of the Prime Minister end. All this discussion will appear in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard,</inline> and I leave it to honorable members and the country to decide whether I did anything unfair to the Prime Minister. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>648</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJE</name.id>
<electorate>FLINDERS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr W H IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- If there is nothing in the report to distinguish what is the comment of the reporter from the remarks of the Prime Minister, the honorable member has no right to say that any part of it is a statement by the Prime Minister. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGRATH</name>
</talker>
<para>- The heading of the reported interview is, " <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> to take office," and we are informed that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cook</inline> has kindly accorded this special interview. How can we believe but that the Prime Minister said what is there set down? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joseph Cook</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is made clear what I did not say. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGRATH</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some one has slandered Australia, and the Prime Minister says he is not the guilty person. I should very much like to have the original manuscript here, so that we might know who was the writer. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>649</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>- Order ! The honorable member may not go into that matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>649</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr McGRATH</name>
</talker>
<para>- We ought to know who is the special correspondent who has slandered Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>