/
19091001_senate_3_52.xml
5534 lines (5534 loc) · 299 KB
/
19091001_senate_3_52.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>1909-10-01</date>
<parliament.no>3</parliament.no>
<session.no>4</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1909-10-01</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>OLD-AGE PENSIONS</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7L</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STORY, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator STORY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the VicePresident of the Executive Council in a position to reply to the second portion of the question I asked yesterday in connexion with the administration of the Old-age Pensions Act ? I desired to know whether the Government indorsed the interpretation given to the Act by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. J.</inline> Denistoun Wood and, if not, whether he and other magistrates would be instructed as to the proper interpretation of the Act. The Minister did not reply to the inquiry. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>Free Trade</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</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>- Speaking . from memory, I am under the impression that that question was answered by the statement that in the administration of the Commonwealth Act no decrease or reduction was made from the pension of a married couple living together. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4008</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>- Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council inform the Senate as to the probable date on which the Government will be able to communicate the full results of the recent Naval and Military Conference, and to make a statement on the subject ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Free Trade</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 cannot speak definitely, but if the honorable senator will question me next week I shall endeavour to ascertain the position in the meantime. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>QUARANTINE ACT: MAIL SERVICE</title>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4008</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KSH</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MACFARLANE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator MACFARLANE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some time ago I asked a question about the landing of mails at Fremantle and the administration of the quarantine regulations. I desire to know whether the Minister of Trade and Customs noticed the great delay which took place lately at Fremantle in landing mails from a steamer of the Orient Company, and their declaration that they would not be responsible for the mails if required to discharge them at sea or at some distance from the port. I do not know whether he saw the report in the press, but what I want to know is whether he will endeavour by an amendment of the quarantine regulations to insure less detention of the steamers at that port? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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 Sir ROBERT BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- My honorable friend will recognise that there must be a more careful inspection by the quarantine officers at what is practically the gate of Australia so far as these ships are concerned than elsewhere. If there is a little more delay in making that more thorough investigation, it should not be made a cause of complaint, seeing that the time so occupied will be more than saved at other ports. I had my attention drawn to the matter, and instructed the Director of Quarantine that so soon as his duties would permit, he should go to Fremantle and make a personal inquiry, so that the examination may be reduced to the smallest limits, having regard to complete efficiency. There is no advantage to the Commonwealth in delaying a steamer. Our whole anxiety is to secure expedition, accompanied with a thorough and effective examination by the quarantine officers. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PHYSICAL CULTURE</title>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JVC</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</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>- I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, in view of the fact that out of forty-six candidates who attended for examination in Victoria for admission into the police force, twenty-nine were rejected for failure in physical requirements, and that four others were condemned by the doctor, and in view of the enormous benefits derived by men from a training in physical culture he will consult the Minister of Defence and make a statement to the Senate next week whether the Cabinet intend to make physical culture a part of the training of our troops, and, if so, to what extent ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>Free Trade</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 noticed a paragraph in the press, and naturally regretted the facts therein disclosed. I invite the attention of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dobson</inline> to the statement made by the Minister of Defence in presenting the Defence Bill, in which he mentioned that physical training is to be provided for. If, however, my honorable friend desires it, I shall bring the paragraph and his remarks before my colleagues. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL</title>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Bill presented (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Robert</inline> Best) and read a first time. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2)</title>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pulsford)</inline> agreed to- </para>
<quote>
<para>That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections. </para>
</quote>
<para>Bill presented and read a first time. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL BILL (No. 1)</title>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen)</inline> proposed - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the report be adopted. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator VARDON</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I desire to move the recommittal of the Bill with a view to the insertion of a new clause for the amendment of section 198 of the principal Act, which reads as follows - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the roll to be correct; but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any roll. </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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 Bill before the Senate contains no provision in that respect, and therefore it will not be competent for the honorable senator to propose its recommittal for the purpose of considering the clause which he has suggested. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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>- We can recommit the whole Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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, but every amendment must be relevant to the amending Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1U</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PULSFORD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator PULSFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>. - If I may take advantage of this opportunity, I should like to explain my reason for introducing a small amending Bill to-day. I wish to abolish election deposits, or to alter- </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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>- That matter is not strictly relevant to the question before the Senate, but I shall not object if the honorable senator does not speak at too great length. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1U</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PULSFORD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator PULSFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I had an amendment prepared to submit in connexion with the Bill before the Senate, and I want to explain the reason why I did not move it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</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 point out to the honorable senator that the time for making that explanation will be when his Bill is brought forward. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4009</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3E</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator E J RUSSELL</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I want to take advantage of this opportunity to put a question to the VicePresident of the Executive Council. Yesterday a clause was agreed to for the purpose of insuring that applications made on existing forms shall not be rejected as informal until such time as the card system is adopted. It has been brought under my notice that during the last few months there has been an alteration in the forms, and that applications on such forms have already been made. I desire to know whether the clause I refer to will cover all alterations in forms ' made during the last three months as well as the card system in future, whether the existing applications will be rejected as informal, or whether the names of the applicants will be placed on the roll ? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator de Largie</name>
</talker>
<para>- That was explained here the other night. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3E</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RUSSELL, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator E J RUSSELL</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not hear the explanation, and therefore I draw the Minister's attention to the matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>. - I wish to ask whether I should be in order in moving to recommit the Bill for the purpose of amending section 206 (b) of the Act of 1905? The section makes it an offence for candidates to subscribe to clubs or associations within three months of an election. That section is not dealt with in the Bill before us, but I would point out that the Bill does deal with electoral offences, and under the principal Act it is an electoral offence to subscribe in the manner I have indicated. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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 not in order to move any amendment which is not strictly relevant to the subject-matter of a Bill. Some time ago a question arose as to the power of amending a principal Act when an amending Bill touching a portion of such an Act was under consideration. It was then clearly laid down by my predecessor in this chair, that an amendment would not be in order unless strictly relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill actually before the Senate. That decision was accepted, but a provision was inserted in the Standing Orders that when an amending Bill was under consideration an instruction might be given to the Committee to amend the principal Act in a direction that was not within the scope of the amending Bill. But an instruction of that character must necessarily be given before a Bill first goes into Committee, and immediately after its second reading. Notice must also be given of the proposition. As that procedure has not been followed in this case, it will not be in order for <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> to move to recommit the Bill for the purpose of con sidering such an amendment as he has indicated. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</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>. - Inmy second-reading speech I drew attention to clause 20 of this Bill, where it is provided that the electoral rolls in force at the time of an election shall be conclusive evidence of the right of each person enrolled thereon to vote. I take it that what is meant is that the fact that a person is enrolled shall be taken as evidence of his right to record his vote as an elector, and that it is not intended to give such a person an unquestionable right to have his vote counted? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- The elector has a right to vote subject to his ability to answer the necessary questions. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- If the Minister has directed the attention of the Crown Law officers to the clause, and if the intention be such as he has indicated, it will not be necessary for me to ask for the recommittal of the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</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>. - I should like to have this Bill recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering clause 17, with the object of striking out the provision authorizing justices of the peace to witness signatures to postal votes. I think that honorable senators will agree with me that there are no greater political partisans than are justices of the peace. They are appointed for political reasons. No man is made a justice of the peace in this country unless upon the recommendation of somebody in politics. The services of justices of the peace are undoubtedly taken advantage of at election time. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator Vardon</name>
</talker>
<para>- As many justices of the peace have been appointed from one side in politics as from the other. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- That is not so. How many members of the Labour party have been appointed justices of the peace? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- Is the honorable senator a justice of the peace? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- I am, in two States - New South Wales and South Australia. I have been exceptionally fortunate. But for one supporter of the Labour party who has been made a justice of the peace, a hundred have been appointed from the party opposite. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator Vardon</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nonsense. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4010</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>- How many working men have been appointed justices of the peace in South Australia? Not more than five. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- Does the honorable senator think that I would attribute unfair conduct to him because he belongs to the Opposition ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- I hope not. Tasmania has never thought it worth while to appoint justices of the peace from the working class. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHATAWAY, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Chataway</name>
</talker>
<para>- Any number of men who are members of the Labour party, though not actually working men, are justices of the peace. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- How many working men in New South Wales have been appointed justices of the peace? Not a dozen altogether. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- How many thousands of working men are unfit to 'be appointed ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- Justices of the peace, who are usually appointed for political purposes, have no right to exercise functions under this Bill. They, are not the persons who should be intrusted to be authored witnesses at election time. I move - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>That the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of reconsidering clause 17 (Authorized witnesses). </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1U</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PULSFORD, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator PULSFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>. - Surely <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie</inline> cannot be in earnest in hurling accusations against so many thousands of men. throughout Australia. It is simply absurd that a man is not to be trusted to act as a witness under a Bill like this simply because he is a justice of the peace. It is unthinkable that the honorable senator should seriously mean what- he has said. I hope that he will not proceed with his proposal. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - The proposal made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie</inline> is, in my view, a right and proper one. I speak from personal knowledge of the party manipulation that has occurred in the appointment of justices of the peace in Western Australia. I shall give names, and I challenge honorable senators opposite to disprove my assertions. I shall in the first place mention the name of no less prominent a person than the Commonwealth Treasurer. When <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest was Premier of Western Australia, in preFederal days, he appointed many justices of the peace, and I shall show the undoubted bias that he exercised. I was President of the Miners' Association in Kalgoorlie. Considerable inconvenience was caused on the gold-fields in those days because there was a lack of justices of the peace who could sign documents. The association of which I was president took the matter up, at the request of a number of its members. There was a discussion at a meeting, and a motion was carried suggesting the names of four persons as fit and proper men to be appointed. These names were sent down to <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest, as head of the State Government. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- Who were the men suggested ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will give the names and will show that they were by no means selected from one side. The organization recommended the appointment of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Richard</inline> Hamilton, who was general manager of the Great Boulder mine at that time. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hamilton</inline> is still in Western Australia, and is President of the Chamber of Mines at Kalgoorlie. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- Was that recommendation set aside? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- If . the honorable senator will not be in too great a hurry he will learn the whole history of the matter, and will be able to judge whether political bias enters into these appointments or not. The other gentlemen recommended were <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Green,</inline> a merchant in Boulder City and Alderman of the Council, who is still in business in Western Australia ; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Gilbert</inline> Haddon, the manager of Hannan 's Proprietary mine, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. O'Connor,</inline> the President of the Boulder branch of our organization. I was myself asked to stand for nomination, and declined. We gave no thought to the political aspect of the question. We knew that more justices of the peace were required, and submitted these recommendations to <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</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>- It was the duty of the organization to suggest an increase in the number of justices of the peace, but not to recommend the appointment of its own nominees. I never heard of such a thing. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4011</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- We were members of a community that had been drawn together from all parts of the Commonwealth, and some one had to take the responsibility of recommending the appointment of suitable persons. That responsibility was assumed by an important and representative organization. Only one of the four gentlemen nominated was a member of the organization. The reply we received from <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest, or through his_ officials, was that the Government of which he was a member was not going to be dominated, and would not have any class appointments. He refused to make these appointments because they were of a purely class nature. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</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>- Apparently he took the same- view as I do - that the organization exceeded its duty. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- A few months later <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hamilton</inline> was made a justice of the peace, and, if I remember rightly, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Green</inline> was also appointed ; but on the recommendation of some one else. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</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>- How does the honorable senator know that? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- When these gentlemen were not appointed on the recommendation of a representative organization, it is clear that they must, later on, have been recommended by some one else to secure appointment at the hands of a politician of the type of <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Forrest. I have nothing to say against either <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hamilton</inline> or <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Green.</inline> Both are gentlemen of high standing, and are respected by all classes on the gold-fields of Western Australia. Perhaps there is no man who is more highly esteemed in Western Australia than is <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hamilton.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</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>- Were any other persons subsequently appointed from the same locality ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>
<name role="display">Senator DE LARGIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I cannot say, but certainly no one from our side was appointed. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</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>- Then the organization got two out of four of their recommendations through. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4012</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JU7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DE LARGIE, Hugh</name>