/
19051011_senate_2_27.xml
9677 lines (9677 loc) · 517 KB
/
19051011_senate_2_27.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>1905-10-11</date>
<parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1905-10-11</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Assent to Bills</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KSQ</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MATHESON, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator MATHESON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask the Minister of Defence, without notice, whether he is aware thatthe messages conveying the Royal Assent to Supply Bill (No. 3), and the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill, and bearing the signature of the Governor-General, as given at Government House, Melbourne, on the 28th September, were dated at a time when His Excellency was at sea off the coast of Western Australia? I should like to know how the honorable senator accounts for the signature of His Excellency being upon the messages. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0X</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PLAYFORD, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator PLAYFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- My attention had not been called to the matter before. I certainly cannot account for it, unless the Governor-General could be in two places at one time. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PRESIDENT'S RULINGS</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7V</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SYMON, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I desire to ask you, sir, whether it would be possible to arrange that honorable senators shall be furnished with a print, in a more convenient and serviceable form than that issued, of the rulings given by you during last session ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the Senate so desires, it can be arranged to have the rulings printed in the same form as the Standing Orders, and bound up with any honorable senator's copy of them, if it is sent in for the purpose. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7V</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SYMON, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir Josiah Symon</name>
</talker>
<para>- It will not be necessary, then, to submit a motion on the subject? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, I shall get it done. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7V</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SYMON, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir Josiah Symon</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think it can be taken by you, sir, that the Senate would prefer to have the rulings printed and bound in that way. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>TELEPHONE LINE REPAIRERS: PERTH</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that a number of the line repairers in theTelephoneDepartment, Perth, Western Australia, are doing gangers' duties, though classed as line repairers, and receiving only line repairers' wages? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is it a fact that a number of senior line repairers are working under the gangers referred to? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>If the facts are as stated above, does the Minister consider that some recognition should be made of themen who act as gangers, and have added responsibilities? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>If so, will the Minister make representations to the Public Service Commissioner to give recognition to these additional responsibilities? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable senator's questions are as follow: - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>It is a fact so far as four such line repairers are concerned ; but they receive a salary of£148 13s. 6d. per annum, that is,£28 13s.6d. in excess of the classification maximum for line repairers, and nearly the maximum for senior line repairers. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>There are two senior line repairers tempor arily working under the line repairers referred to in order to obtain the experience necessary to enablethem to take other positions, as they had previously no knowledge of town work. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>As ho change has been made in the work performed by the line repairers, and there are no such positions as gangers recognised in the Classification, it is not considered that any recognition, beyond the salaries they are already receiving, should be made. </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Replied to by the answer to question No. 3. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY</title>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3329</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6D</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SMITH, Miles</name>
<name role="display">Senator STANIFORTH SMITH</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice-</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it the intention of the Government to allow a private company to instal a wireless telegraphy service between Australiaand New Zealand? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Would not such a service seriously deplete the revenues of the State-owned cable between Australia and New Zealand, and thereby increase the financial responsibilities of the people of Australia ? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>If the establishment of any wireless telegraphy stations in the Commonwealth are deemed necessary, would it not be advisable for commercial, national, and defence considerations, that these should be owned and controlled by the Commonwealth ? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable senators questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>To the extent to which it was successful, it would have that effect. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Yes. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMPERIAL MILITARY OFFICERS</title>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Doeshe propose to re-engage, as their terms expire, Imperial officers brought to Australia to serve in the Commonwealth Defence Force? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What Imperial officers have lately been so re-engaged ? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is it the intention of the Minister to renew the engagement of Lieut. -Colonel Plomer? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0X</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PLAYFORD, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator PLAYFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable senator's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>None. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>COPYRIGHT BILL</title>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it true that books originally published in the United States of America are copyrighted in Great Britain and throughout its dependencies, including the Commonwealth of Australia, merely by simultaneous registration at the Stationers' Hall, London? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is it true that, in order to secure copyright protection in the United States of America, Australian publications must be set up in type in that country, andthe printing done there or elsewhere either from this type or from plates made therefrom, and that the publication must be simultaneous in the United States and Australia? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is it the intention of the Government to make provision in the Copyright Bill whereby United States publications shall receive protection in the Commonwealth only on the same terms on which British publications get it in the United States? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not propose to answer these questions categorically at this stage; but if the honorable senator, or any one else, desires to get the information asked for in them during the consideration of the Bill, I shall be prepared to give it with the reasons for my answers. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE</title>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<type>leave of absence</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">" Urgent Public Business. " </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Before asking whether the notice of motion standing in the name of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs</inline> is "formal" or " not formal," I should like to direct the attention of the Senate to its wording. It reads - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That one month's leave of absence be granted to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> on account of urgent public business. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">So far as I know, no motion in similar terms has yet been, moved, and it is for the Senate to say whether it is prepared to admit that any business is more urgent or important than its own business. I cannot rule the motion out of order, because it is strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders. Is themotion " formal " or " not formal " ? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- Not formal. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- One dissentient voice prevents the motion from being taken as " formal," but it can be moved by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs</inline> inthe ordinary way. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That one month's leave of absence be granted to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> on account of urgent public business. </para>
</quote>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Millen</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can this motion be moved now, sir? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. Standing order 47 provides that any such motion shall be called on before public business. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- If there is any departure in this from the usual phraseology of such motions, it is because it struck me that it might be more correct to say that the reason for asking for the leave of absence is urgent public business rather than urgent private business. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is no reason given in the motion. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">Senator HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The reason is urgent public business. Of course another honorable senator might prefer that I should say public business. I am not certain, sir, that it is wise to introduce a discussion on a motion of this kind ; at any rate, I do not propose to initiate a discussion, and, therefore, I merely submit the motion. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- As there seems to be some misapprehension on the matter, I shall read standing order47 - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>Leave of absence may be given by the Senate to any senator, on motion, after notice, stating the cause and period of absence; and such motion shall have priority over other motions. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3330</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I was very glad, sir, tohear your remarks before the motion was called on, because I intended for more than one reason to oppose it. It would seem to follow from standing order 47 that some reason should be given in a motion for leave of absence. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs,</inline> however, has approached the subject in quite another way. Apparently he thinks it is quite sufficient to put a motion on the notice-paper for leave of absence on the very extraordinary ground of urgent public business. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GIVENS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Givens</name>
</talker>
<para>- There have been far more extraordinary reasons than that given here. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not heard them. To ask for leave of absence for an honorable senator on account of urgent public business is from my point of view practically a contradiction in terms. The public business which is urgent so far as the Senate is concerned ought to be that requiring the attendance of an honorable senator here. The motion as worded carries with it the implication that certain business which has not been mentioned by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs,</inline> but which we gather is public, is more urgent than the public duty of every honorable senator to be here when the Senate is sitting. I oppose the motion for reasons which although, so far, they have been unexpressed, must be in the mind of every one here. The grounds for asking for leave of absence rest entirely upon the fact that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> is away with the Tariff Commission. When the question of any honorable senator absenting himself in order to discharge his duty on the Tariff Commission was before the Senate, I took up a stand which probably is remembered. The personal element does not enter into my opposition to the motion. It would have met with my opposition, even if it had asked for leave for <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
</talker>
<para>- More so. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator CLEMONS</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, the personal element does not enter into my opposition. I feel now, as I felt some time ago, that the prior duty of every honorable senator is to the Senate. There was no real reason why <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor,</inline> or any other honorable senator who happened to be a member of the Tariff Commission, should be called away from Melbourne while Parliament was sitting. Even if to some persons interested in the Tariff Commission, directly or indirectly, it had seemed desirable that its work should proceed even while Parliament was sitting, the position in which we now find ourselves ought to be unsatisfactory. In the debate to which I referred just now, no one urged that the duty of an honorable senator to attend the meetings of the Tariff Commission was more urgent than his duty to attend the meetings of the Senate. In spite of the interjection from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie,</inline> I venture to think that the majority of honorable senators are opposed to any honorable senator absenting himself from the meetings of the Senate in order to attend the meetings of aRoyal Commission. I feel quite confident that if a vote could be taken without any side issue being introduced, the opinion of the majority of the Senate would be against granting leave of absence for that purpose. Entertaining that feeling, I am compelled, if I am to be consistent, to oppose this motion. If the leave asked for be refused, no personal hardship will be inflicted upon <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor,</inline> because we have not yet reached that stage when, he would be inconvenienced so far as his proper attendance here is concerned. I have taken care to ascertain that if this leave of absence be refused, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> will be in no danger whatever of losing his seat. I admit that he will have to come back, but I make that admission with the greatest pleasure, because I think, first of all, that he ought never to have gone, and, secondly, that he ought to come back. Seeing that there will be no hardship, and that this principle of absence from the Senate to carry on any other public duty which, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Higgs</inline> alleges, is more urgent, is in question,I hope that honorable senators will find it quite open to them to vote on the motion, wholly irrespective of the personalaspects of the case. I have therefore risen, not merely to oppose the motion by word, but with a determination to call for a division. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to state that my memory led me astray when I said that no other motion such as this had been moved in the Senate. My attention has been called to the records for the 14th May, 1902, when leave of absence was granted to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lt.-Col.</inline> Cameron "on account of urgent public business." That was on anoccasion when Lt.-Col. Cameron went to England in command of a military contingent on behalf of the Commonwealth. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
</talker>
<para>- Was there any objection on that occasion? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</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">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3331</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate>Tasmania.</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Honorary Minister</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I hope that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Clemons, who has objected to this motion being treated as formal, will not carry out the intention which he has just expressed of calling for a division. It seems to me that if he intends to do that, his opposition to the motion is not based upon the principle of the motion itself that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> should be granted leave of absence, but is based on the ground that he should not be granted leave for the reasons assigned. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have already said that I objected to the motion on principle. Is <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keating</inline> doubting my word ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- I admit that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> has no personal objection to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> obtaining leave of absence, except for the cause assigned - that he is absent on account of "urgent" public business. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is not that the whole point? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- Very well, then; it seems to me that the objection is not because! <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> is absent on public business. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> never ventured to suggest a single argument to show that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor's</inline> absence was not due to public business. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- I said that the business of the Senate is the more urgent business. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- Then it is a question of the relative urgency of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor's</inline> attendance here or elsewhere. Upon that is based the whole of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons'</inline> objection, to this motion. It appears to me that the question of the comparative urgency of the duty of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> to be in attendance here, or of his duty as, a member of the Tariff Commission to be somewhere else, is the matter sought -to be put in in dispute. The point that it is, in any case, Commonwealth business upon which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> is absent does not seem to appeal to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> at all. It is not suggested that his absence is due to private business. No matter how urgent or otherwise the business may be, it is public business that is keeping him away from the Senate. The urgency of that business may. in the minds of some people, be very small indeed. Its urgency may seem to be overshadowed by the urgency of the call to duty in the Senate. But that is not the position with which we have to deal. Suppose the' word " urgent " were left out of the motion. Would <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> then oppose it? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- Undoubtedly. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- Very well; suppose the word " public " were left out, and it was stated that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> was absent on urgent private business. Would <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> object then? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would entirely depend on circumstances. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- We have repeatedly, at the instance of different senators, passed motions granting leave of absence, extending in some cases to two months, on account of " urgent private business"; and, so far as my recollection serves, no one has asked the nature of the private business that detained the honorable senator in whose interest the motion was moved. If it is competent for an honorable senator to abstain from his public duty in the Senate on account of " urgent private business," and if a motion to that effect is accepted as a matter of course, without opposition and without inquiry as to the nature of the private business, surely we may expect that when an honorable senator asks for leave of absence on the ground that he is in attendance elsewhere on public business, no matter how urgent, it may likewise be accepted without opposition. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DOBSON, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator Dobson</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable and learned senator is not answering argument as to the question of principle. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3332</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am. I say that the Senate has repeatedly and invariably given leave to honorable senators to abstain from attendance on account of private business. We do not care whether that private business is urgent or otherwise. When an honorable senator moves that another be granted leave of absence on account of public business, no matter whether it is urgent" public business or whether the urgency is equal to that of the business before the Senate, the fact remains that the ground of absence assigned is public business ; and I say that public business, no matter how unimportant it may be relatively to other' public business, is a sounder cause for granting leave of absence than private business, no matter how urgent the latter may be. If we are prepared from time to time to grant leave to senators to be absent on account of private business, no matter how extreme or otherwise its urgency, we ought to be prepared to grant on like terms absence on account of public business, however unimportant; because public business ought to be of greater consequence to us in determining such a question than the most urgent private business. For those reasons, I ask <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Clemons</inline> not to press for a division on the motion. If, however, he wishes to express his disagreement with the suggestion that the absence of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> is on urgent grounds, why not take the course of amending the motion by striking out the word " urgent"? If he wishes to register his objection to the absence of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor</inline> being designated as on account of " public business," why not move to strike out the word "public" ? If he thinks that the honorable senator is absent on 'account of private business, why not move to insert the word ' ' private ' ' ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3333</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6M</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CLEMONS, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Clemons</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why should I do that? I am not asking for leave. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>3333</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>