/
19081016_senate_3_47.xml
2294 lines (2294 loc) · 113 KB
/
19081016_senate_3_47.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>1908-10-16</date>
<parliament.no>3</parliament.no>
<session.no>3</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1908-10-16</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT :</title>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate>Victoria</electorate>
<party>Protectionist</party>
<role>Vice-Presi dent of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>. - Honorable senators can scarcely be unaware of certain happenings in another place. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel Neild</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to order. There is a standing order which sets out the procedure to be followed at the opening of a sitting, and I suggest that it would be more convenient to comply with it, and go through the business paper in the ordinary way. It would have been as competent for the Minister to interrupt the reading of prayers as it is to interrupt procedure in the way in which he is now doing. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</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>- The Standing Orders provide that, at any time, the adjournment of the Senate may be moved by, or on behalf of, a Minister of the Crown. Therefore it is perfectly competent for the VicePresident of the Executive Council to move the adjournment now, and, of course, equally competent for him to defer such action until the formal business of the day has been dealt with: The matter is one for his own discretion. . </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- When interrupted in such an unseemly manner, I had made the preliminary remark that honorable senators . could not be unaware of something which has happened in another place. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel Neild</name>
</talker>
<para>- I take exception to the expression "unseemly manner" as applying to my action in addressing the Chair on a point of order. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</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>- The Minister was not entitled to use, those words in reference to the honorable senator, and, I am sure, will withdraw them. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1289</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Certainly. Honorable senators, of course, know that notice of a motion of no-confidence has been launched against the Government by the leader of the Opposition in another place, and must realize that that requires the suspension of all Government business, so far as matters of policy are concerned, and the reduction of administration practically to mere matters of form. It is obvious that, Government business having been brought to a standstill elsewhere, it cannot be proceeded with by Ministers in this Chamber. The hands of my colleagues being tied elsewhere, I have no alternative but to follow the usual constitutional procedure, and move the adjournment of the Senate. Not only is this the practice in the Mother of Parliaments, and throughout the British Dominions, but, as honorable senators will remember, it has been followed here by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> O'Connor, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Josiah</inline> Symon, and, I think, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor,</inline> when representing Governments similarly attacked. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GRAY, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Gray</name>
</talker>
<para>- What would be the consequence of a no-confidence motion here? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I prefer not to consider that possibility at this moment. With the calamity which I have suggested pending, I have no alternative but to take the action I speak of ; but we must first determine when we shall meet again. It would be our duty to meet on Wednesday next, if there were a likelihood of the censure debate being concluded then ; but honorable senators know pretty well that there is no reasonable prospect of that. I think that Wednesday week is the earliest date which we can reasonably fix ; but I am desirous of consulting the convenience of the Senate. The Government, of course, would be glad to go on. next Wednesday, </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</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>- Wednesday fortnight would be a better date. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think it would be better to adjourn for only a week. I therefore move- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday, 28th October. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</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>. - I am pleased that the VicePresident of the Executive Council has fixed Wednesday week as the date for our next meeting. It is highly improbable that the censure debate will terminate before the end of next week, and, although we desire to proceed with our business as rapidly as possible, it would be a great inconvenience to assemble here again next Wednesday from all parts of Australia, merely to agree to a further adjournment. The honorable gentleman seemed at some pains to apologize for his action, but, in my opinion, he has taken the only course open to any one who has regard for the practice of, and the constitutional requirements which are imposed on, the Senate equally with the House of Representatives. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLS</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</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>. - I am opposed to this adjournment. Why should we concern ourselves with the squabbles of, and scrambling for office in, another place? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<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>- This is the second attempt to postpone the settlement of the Capital site question. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</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>- Not only is it a scramble for office, but it is also an attempt by persons who are always mouthing their desire to have the Capital site chosen, to delay the settlement of the question. I fail to see why the Senate, which has important business awaiting its consideration, should take cognisance of any such squabbles in the other Chamber. We have before us the Navigation Bill, which, in one form or another, has claimed some share of our attention during the past four years. It is very manifest that that measure will have torun the gauntlet of all sorts of delays before it becomes law. We have already been considering it for several weeks during the current session. It contains over 400 clauses, and so far we have reached only clause 13. Do not honorable senators realize that if we are going to take advantage of opportunities to adjourn for the purpose of gaining a holiday our chances of reaching finality in respect of that measure during the current session are absolutely hopeless? The Navigation Bill is not a party measure in any sense of the term, as is proved by the divisions which have already taken place, and in which members of the Opposition have voted with the Government just as frequently as they have against it. Why should the fate of that Bill be kept in abeyance pending the result of a party squabble elsewhere ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator St Ledger</name>
</talker>
<para>- The VicePresident of the Executive Council has told the honorable senator the reason why. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1290</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>-But the reason is not an adequate one. I . am an advocate of doing the serious business of the country in a business-like way. I have endeavoured to show that the Navigation Bill is a nonparty measure, and that its progress through this Chamber should not be dependent upon the constant struggle for office elsewhere. I fail to see why the Senate should not devote itself seriously to the task of transacting the business of the country, and why it should not allow the other Chamber to continue its party squabbles as long as it chooses to do so. The Vice-President of the Executive Council might just as reasonably have asked the </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Senate to adjourn till Wednesday month as till Wednesday week, because if his motion be carried it will be impossible to transact any serious business during the short period of the session that will then remain. In view of the desire of members of the Opposition to postpone a settlement of the Capital, site question, is it reasonable to assume that the debate upon the no-confidence motion will terminate next week? The leader of the Opposition in another place will himself occupy the whole of Tuesday next, and, in replying, the Prime Minister will probably occupy the greater portion of the following day. Then the deputy leader of the Opposition, and the three leaders of the corner party, will, feel called upon to discuss the question, and when the flood of inanities has been let loose by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Johnson</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kelly,</inline> the debate will probably continue for at least a month. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GRAY, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Gray</name>
</talker>
<para>- How about <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Webster?</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- Honorable senators are not in order in alluding to members of the other House bv name. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- <inline font-style="italic">"Foi</inline> the past five years this Parliament has -been twitted with having endeavoured to evade the responsibility cast upon it by the Constitution of determining the Federal Capital site. That charge has been constantly repeated by members of the Opposition. But what are the undeniable facts? When the Government attempted to settle the question last session, the Opposition used every means in their power to intervene with another scramble for office. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- That statement is not correct. The motion to which the honorable senator refers was launched by a member of the Labour Party, and as soon as that party found it was loaded they became docile. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- A simple motion was submitted affirming the desirableness of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the administration of the Post and Telegraph Department. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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 would_ point out that the honorable senator is getting away from the motion under consideration, which is that the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a particular day. The honorable senator's remarks must be strictly relevant to that question. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- I respectfully submit that I am advancing reasons why the Senate should not adjourn. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- The honorable senator is advancing very good reasons why the adjournment should be for a fortnight. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- The adjournment might as well be for two months as for a week. If we re-assemble towards the end of the present month, only about six weeks of the session will remain in which to transact urgent business. My remarks in connexion with the determination of the Federal Capital site question are perfectly <inline font-style="italic">a-pro-pos</inline> on this occasion, because it is within the knowledge of everybody that the Vice-President of the Executive Council has already given notice of a motion to take an exhaustive ballot upon it. That is another non-party matter with which this Senate might very well deal next week. Its settlement was shelved last session by reason of the action of the Opposition in another place. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- It is quite immaterial whether the settlement of that question was shelved upon a former occasion by reason of the action of the Opposition, or of anybody else. The question now under consideration is whether tha Senate should or should not adjourn till a particular date. The honorable senator must see that his remarks are scarcely relevant to the motion before the Chair. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1291</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>- A tentative settlement of the Federal Capital question has been arrived at in another place, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council has_ already given notice of his intention to take action with a view to arriving at a determination of it in this Chamber. If we agree to the proposed adjournment, the settlement of that matter will be indefinitely postponed, because we shall not be afforded another opportunity of dealing with it during the current session. Are we to be held responsible for the shelving of such an important question? Undoubtedly we are not. The responsibility will rest entirely with the members of the Opposition who, in season, and out of season, have been clamouring for its settlement. For these reasons I intend to oppose the motion for adjournment. If I receive any support I shall divide the Senate upon it, because I maintain that so long as we have serious work to do, we should set ourselves to its accomplishment, without taking any cognisance whatever of squabbles for office elsewhere, or indeed of any other extraneous circumstance. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">We have work of great importance to do, and should not adjourn merely because of something that has occurred somewhere else, and of which we have no official knowledge. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- It has just been conveyed to the Senate by the official representative of the Government. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- But not in an official way. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- What would the honorable senator do in the circumstances if he were leader of the Government in this Chamber? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- Probably if I were like the honorable senator I should take advantage of the incident to have a holiday. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is the honorable senator's mean and contemptible way of putting his case. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- Order; the senators must not carry on conversations with each other. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask, sir, that the honorable senator should not be permitted to make untruthful references to myself. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- The honorable senator is not in order in making a charge of untruthfulness against another honorable senator. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Givens</inline> has made a misstatement the honorable senator has a right to call attention to the fact or to make an explanation at a later stage. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- I should not have alluded to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Findley</inline> if he had not interjected. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why did the honorable senator insinuate that I desired a holiday. He is simply trying to throw the limelight on himself. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- I have as much right to reply to an interjection as the honorable senator has to make one. I offer no apology. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Findley</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator never does. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- Order. I ask honorable senators not to carry on these conversations. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- I have adduced several good reasons why we should go on with our business, and transact it in the interests of those who have sent us here. I fail to see why we should be guided by musty precedents. It has been my rule ever since I have been a member of the Senate to disregard precedents unless they commend themselves to my good sense. We should not be ruled by the dead hand of people who lived generations since. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Best</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are guided by our own uniform precedents. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- And are making them as we go along. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1292</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>- I care not by whom precedents are created, we are here to do our business in our own way, entirely independent of what any one in bygone times has said. I have no respect for ancient precedents, and could name a hundred which any sensible person would disregard. I am not in favour of the motion for the adjournment, and if I can obtain any support, shall call for a division. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator Colonel NEILD</inline>(New South Wales) [10.54]. - The Vice-President of the Executive Council has either gone too far or not far enough. He has proposed an adjournment of seven days, which means four sitting days in . another place and three sitting days in the case of the Senate. I sympathize with what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Givens</inline> has said as to the practice of Parliament in adjourning when motions of the kind referred to have been lodged.. But, on the other hand, I must draw attention to the extraordinary avidity with which the Minister moved this motion, and to his evident delight at the occurrence of something that will relieve him of the responsibility of continuing to play out time, as this Chamber has done, at his instance, for the last six weeks. During that period we have passed thirteen clauses of one Bill. The proverbial readiness of the shark to snap at a bit of pork is trifling as compared with the anxiety of the honorable senator to do nothing. If he means what he says as to the constitutional reasons for an adjournment, then an adjournment for one week is too little. He knows that the motion submitted in another place is not likely to be disposed of in four sitting days, and he is, therefore, proposing to bring back senators at the end of a week merely to adjourn once more. If the motion goes to a vote in its present form I shall, therefore, vote with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Givens</inline> against a week's adjournment, but if it be amended to provide for an adjournment for fourteen days, I shall vote for it. That would be a <inline font-style="italic">bond fide</inline> proposal, whereas that now before us is spurious. There is on the notice-paper business that might well be transacted now, and which would not involve any responsibility on the part of the Government. The Seat of Government Bill might certainly be dealt with in the Senate at this stage, because the Government have shown over and over again that they accept no responsibility in regard to it. They do not even agree amongst themselves on the subject. They vote against one another, and it cannot possibly be alleged that the measure is one of Ministerial responsibility. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Best</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is that why the honorable senator is prepared to vote for an adjournment for a fortnight? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- If we are not to be allowed to proceed with business I shall vote for a sensible and not for a silly adjournment. My desire is that we should push on with the selection of the Capital site, and I deplore that something which has just been reported to the Senate should have occurred in another place at this juncture. However desirable it may be to discuss such a motion at the proper time, it is deplorable that it should have been launched just when there was some hope of finality in regard to the selection of the Capital site. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</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 ask the honorable senator not to discuss that question in detail. The question before us is the <late to which the Senate shall adjourn. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understand that the motion before us is not one for the adjournment of the Senate in the ordinary way, but a special adjournment motion. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</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>- The question to be considered is the date to which we should adjourn. It is not for us to debate the wisdom or unwisdom of the action of another place with regard to a motion pf censure. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know that, sir. I was only incidentally expressing my regret that that motion had been tabled at this juncture. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</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 am afraid that the honorable senator was proceeding to discuss it at too great length. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I thought that I referred to it only in the most incidental manner; but I know that there are not a dozen words in the English language that will bear the same complexion ito two minds. I do not care to move an amendment extending the adjournment to a fortnight, but I hope the Minister will <lo so or take the consequences of the defeat of his motion in its present form. I ask the Minister whether he will move to make the date to which wa shall adjourn the 4th November. As the honorable gentleman does not seem disposed to accept that reasonable suggestion, I move - </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<quote>
<para>That the words "28th October" be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "4th November." </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I wish either to go on with the business or to have a sensible adjournment. I do not desire to be brought here, or to see other honorable senators brought here, on the 28th October for a five minutes' sitting, in which we shall be told that the matter which has arisen has not yet been settled, and a further adjournment will therefore be necessary. We know that it cannot be, settled in four sittings of another place. If my amendment is not carried, I shall vote against any adjournment at all. That we should adjourn only for a week, in the circumstances, is a preposterous proposal, and involves a sheer waste of the time of the majority of the members of the Senate. There are honorable senators who find it necessary during the session to reside permanently in Melbourne. They must be away from their homes, and have to incur additional expense j but they would not be any worse off if the adjournment were over a fortnight. There are other honorable senators, from Queensland and Tasmania, who would have an opportunity of going to their homes if we adjourned for that time. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<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>- Honorable senators from Western Australia cannot go to their homes and back in a fortnight. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- They could go to Perth and back easily in a fortnight. They would be four days on the water each way, and could have six days in Perth. If my amendment is not carried,, and honorable senators decide, as I hope they will, that we shall not adjourn at all, we can go on with the consideration of the question of the Federal Capital site, in respect to which Ministers have no responsibility. There is private business which could be considered. We know that SenatorMcGregor 'was sacrificed last night. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<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>- And <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Neild.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1293</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEILD, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator Colonel NEILD</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable senator makes any reference to a low-down trick-- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>