/
19150708_senate_6_77.xml
9771 lines (9771 loc) · 549 KB
/
19150708_senate_6_77.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>1915-07-08</date>
<parliament.no>6</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>Senate; </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1915-07-08</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MILITARY CENSORSHIP</title>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4658</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>asked <inline font-style="italic">the</inline> Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<para>If cartoons as well as reading matter are subject to military censorship? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>EXPEDITION"ARY FORGES</title>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">Payment of Land Tax - -PARCEL Postage Rates. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4658</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYT</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FERRICKS, Myles</name>
<name role="display">Senator FERRICKS</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>How many applications have been received' by the Land Tax Commissioner from men liable ' to pay the Federal land tax, that is, those owning land worth over £6,000 unimproved value, for an extension of time for the payment of the tax, on the ground that the applicants have volunteered for service at the front? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Commissioner states that only one application on the grounds mentioned has been received. The application has been granted. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2D</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
<name role="display">Senator READY</name>
</talker>
<para>asked lie Minister representing the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is the Minister aware that the recently inaugurated scale of cheaper parcel postage rates to members of the Australian Expeditionary Forces is not generally known to people residing in country districts, and parcels are now coming forward with stamps attached at the old rates of postage? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Are notifications of the reduced rates being exhibited at the various country postoffices in the Commonwealth for public information; if not, why not? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers are - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The usual instructions were issued in the matter, and the Deputy Postmasters-General were directed to also notify the press. If any specific case is furnished to me in which the information is not being made public, I will have it investigated. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>CONSTITUTION ALTERATION BILLS</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">READY, Rudolph</name>
<name role="display">Senator READY</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>Has the Minister noticed the statement of the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Age,</inline> that the plea for urgency with regard to the referendums on the Constitution Alteration Bills is not sound, inasmuch as the referendums are not to be taken before December; and also that the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> states that if they are necessary war measures, " the Bills ought to be carried to the people the instant they passed through Parliament " ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What are the reasons which prevent the referendum^ from being submitted to the people earlier than December? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers are - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Yes; I have read the paragraph referred to. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The provision in the Constitution is that the Bills must be submitted to the electors not earlier than two months, and not later than six months, after they are passed, and, further, that provisions in the Electoral Act require certain things to be done, such as the drawing^ up of arguments for, and objections to, the Bill, and the posting of such statements to every elector of the Commonwealth, and that ballot-papers have to be printed and forwarded to every part of the Commonwealth. It will be found that compliance with these provisions will take more than two months, the minimum allowed by the Constitution. </para>
</item>
</list>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GOULD, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould</name>
</talker>
<para>- I suppose that in the meantime the urgency of the war matter will be held up! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">Report on the proposed extension of buildings and plant at the Small Arms Factory, presented by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lynch.</inline></para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPER</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">The following paper was presented : - </para>
<quote>
<para>Northern Territory. - Ordinance No. 4 of 1915. - District Council. </para>
</quote>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>APPROPRIATION BILL 1914-15</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Gardiner</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to ask you, sir, that we may be permitted to follow the procedure which, by consent, was adopted on a previous occasion when these measures were introduced, and that is that, on the motion for the second reading of the first Bill, we may be allowed to discuss the other Bills, with the view to curtailing debate and conserving the time of the Senate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</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 Minister, and to the Senate, that the only effective way by which what the honorable senator suggests can be done will be by suspending the Standing Orders for that purpose. It could be done, perhaps, by a general agreement among honorable senators, but if any honorable senator were to take the point of order that another Bill was being discussed under cover of the Bill immediately before the Chair I would have to uphold the objection. Again, I would point out that if, after making an arrangement, any honorable senator were to insist upon his right to discuss a subsequent Bill, I could not prevent him from doing so. It is entirely for the Senate itself to suspend the Standing Orders to enable the course to be taken, or it can be done by a general agreement which can be honorably kept by honorable senators, but which I could not compel them to keep. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4659</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K8W</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURLEY, Henry</name>
<name role="display">Senator Turley</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understand that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is asking, in moving the second reading of the first measure, that he shall be at liberty to traverse the ground covered by the whole of these six Bills. Of course, upon the motion for the second reading of any of the other Bills any honorable senator will be at liberty to discuss the principles which are involved in it. Nothing can prevent him doing so - neither an agreement to the contrary nor anything else. The Vice-President of the Executive Council is merely asking that there shall be a general understanding that in moving the second reading of the first of these Bills he shall not be confined to the particular ground-work covered by that measure. I think that a similar measure was adopted on the last occasion, and that, as a matter of fact, there was very little discussion, on the second reading of the other measures. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4660</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>-- This is a matter entirely for the Senate itself. My powers are limited by the Standing Orders, which compel me to take a definite course of action. Of course I can refuse to take notice of any breach of our Standing Orders until my attention is drawn to it. But when once my attention has been directed to any breach, I can no longer refuse to take official cognisance of it. I think it would be more satisfactory to everybody concerned if honorable senators were to follow the course suggested by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I shall assist them to do so by being as blind as possible until my attention is officially drawn to any transgression of our Standing Orders. Of course, if my attention is directed tc irrelevance on the Dart of any honorable member in discussing any Bill, I shall have no option but to insist upon the observance of our Standing Orders. However, I will take the sense of the Senate upon the matter by asking whether it is the desire of honorable senators tha-t the Vice-President of the Executive Council should have leave to discuss the whole of these Constitution Alteration Bills upon the motion for the second reading of the first measure. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Honorable SENATORS - Hear, hear! </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4660</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>. - In moving - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That this Bill be now read a second time, </para>
</quote>
<para>I desire to say that none of these measures contains very much that is new. Their provisions are very familiar to most honorable senators. No less than four times already this Chamber has passed, if not these identical Bills, almost similar, measures, and yet they have not been finally disposed of. Seeing that honorable senators are thoroughly conversant with' their provisions, and that the country itself is- also familiar with them, I do not intend to prolong my remarks anduly on the present occasion. There are, however, one or two matters in connexion with which I propose to quote a few figures, because I think it is desirable that a statement should be made showing the reception which these measures met at the hands of the people on two occasions. I also intend to deal with the treatment accorded to these proposals by the late Government at the close of the last Parliament. I do not think that the present occasion should be allowed to pass without making some reference to that. But apart from these references I shall content myself with dealing briefly with the principles underlying the Bills. In the first place the proposals contained in them were submitted to the people in 1911 in the form of two Bills, namely, the Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) Bill 1910, and the Constitution Alteration (Monopolies) Bill 1910. The nature of the reception accorded to these two measures by the electors is clearly set out in the following table :: - </para>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="077332191507082_2_0.jpg" />
</para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4661</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LYNCH, Patrick</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lynch</name>
</talker>
<para>- Western Australia was the only State which adopted them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4661</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Lynch</inline> has interjected, to the credit of Western Australia it must be said that it was the only State which realized at that time the importance of these measures, and in which a majority of the electors supported <inline font-style="italic">them.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4661</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 was due to the number of Victorians in Western Australia at the time. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4661</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was a splendid result, and something which the Western Australians may well be proud of. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">Although the reading of all these figures may be somewhat wearying to honorable senators, they will be of great use to the electors, and by putting them in all their detail before the Senate, my object is to show that the increase in the course of two years in the number of those supporting the proposals fully justifies the Senate in again passing these measures and asking the people to record another vote upon them. In 1913 another referendum vote was taken on six measures proposed for the amendment of the Constitution. The voting on that occasion was as follows: - </para>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="077332191507082_3_1.jpg" />
</para>
<para class="block">Table - <inline font-style="italic">continued.</inline></para>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="077332191507082_4_2.jpg" />
</para>
<para class="block">I really regret having to weary honorable senators with those figures, which, dull as they may be to honorable senators who are perfectly acquainted with them, are important. As the electors of this country ,will soon be called upon to deal with questions of this magnitude, and settle for themselves what shall be the powers conferred upon this National Parliament, I make that the excuse for reading the figures at greater length than I would otherwise have done. Now, there is another matter to which I desire to refer before passing to the general principles of the Bill, and that is the question which will be asked, Why, at a time like this, are these measures being brought before the people of Australia? Mv answer is that they are being brought before the people because, although this Senate faithfully fulfilled the constitutional conditions entitling the people to vote upon these matters at the last general election, the Government then managing the affairs of this Parliament gave such advice to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral as prevented the people settling the questions once and for all upon that occasion. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4662</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZC</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'LOGHLIN, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator O'LOGHLIN</name>
</talker>
<para>-Colonel O'Loghlin. - The onus rests upon the previous Government. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4662</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; the onus is upon them for giving such advice, which I do not think I am exceeding tem perate language by describing as almost criminal. That advice was a distinct breach of the Constitution, and, strong as that assertion might be, I shall justify it by quoting from the Constitution to show what powers were conferred upon this Senate by the framers of that instrument. And, in quoting from the Constitution, I am not doing so in an offensive party spirit. If I speak boldly and fearlessly, it is that our opponents may reply to the charges. This special power to which I refer is given in section 128, and, as it appears so late in the Constitution, perhaps it may be taken to be the matured judgment of the Convention; that those who were dealing with this question found that no special powers had been' conferred upon the Senate, and so they drafted the following provision - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>This -Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: - </para>
<para>The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. </para>
<para>But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects, or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the firstmentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned </para>
<para class="block">House, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House and such other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law, as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">As members of the Senate are aware, during last Parliament this Senate took the constitutional attitude that, even if there were a majority in the other House - a majority which I may say was not such as would be recognised in any British Parliament; a majority of one only, and that was the Speaker - which would' refuse to pass these measures, and so deny to the people an opportunity of voting upon them, it was entitled to pass the very measures which I am now introducing, and send them along to the other House. The House of Representatives, however, did not pass them, or, to use the phraseology of the Constitution, it failed to pass them. After the constitutional interval of three months had elapsed, the Senate again passed these measures, and again forwarded them to the other House. Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution is definite, and that the conditions were complied with, the questions were not submitted to the people, and I say that the people of this country were tricked out of their right by the advice given to His Majesty's representative - advice which, to my mind, can only be described as criminal, and I am amazed that it was ever accepted. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4663</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 most astonishing thing to me is that after the declaration which you have just made, you can pretend that these are not party measures. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4663</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will deal with that phase of the question at a later stage. Now, the Constitution directly laid down the conditions under which the two Houses should get a constitutional amendment before the country, and I affirm that the party opposed to them must take the responsibility of so altering the Constitution that, if the precedent were followed, never again would this Senate be able to do what the framers of the Constitution intended we should do; never again could this Senate, against the will of the other House, force a question [170]- 2 to the country, because the majority of the other House would always represent the Government. So narrowing is the effect of that advice that it takes away from the people those constitutional safeguards which the framers of the Constitution gave to them. In 1911 these questions were submitted to the people by the vote, certainly, of a party, but a party which represented the people of Australia, and on that occasion, the people outvoted them. Some people might say that we should have been satisfied with that decision, but we were insistent, and again had them submitted to the people in 1913, when the margin against them was so narrow in all the States that, if the informal votes had been favorable to them, the decision would have been the other way. As a matter of fact, three of the States carried the questions, and three were against them, but by such a small percentage that I think it would have been almost the bounden duty of the Government then in office, had they wished to deal with non-party questions, to have recommended again submitting them to the people. However, the Government of the day thought otherwise. I admit that they had a good deal to think about to maintain their position as a Government. At the present time we are working under conditions altogether different to the calm which prevailed when these measures were presented _ to the country on the previous occasion. But that does not render it unnecessary for us to ask once more for the large powers which these measures are intended to give to an Australian Parliament elected by the Australian people. I have heard it interjected from the other side that this is a party question. I challenge honorable senators opposite not to make general statements of that character, but to show in unmistakable language in what way these measures will benefit one party more than the other. We have in the Commonwealth a Labour and an anti-Labour party, and I challenge those who say these are party amendments, calculated to benefit one party as against the other, to make, not general assertions, but a clear statement showing in what direction our party. as a Labour party, can benefit by these powers. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4663</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1I</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BARKER, Stephen</name>
<name role="display">Senator BARKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Hear, hear ! Whom do they enrich ? </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4663</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- They enrich the whole of the people of the Commonwealth by restoring to them - if I may use the word - the powers that the framers of the Constitution fondly believed they had conferred upon the Australian Parliament. As a matter of actual fact, repeated decisions of the High Court have shown that the powers which the framers of the Constitution imagined they conferred on this Parliament did not really exist. I have here a long list of decisions of the High Court on Bill after Bill passed by this Parliament by the votes of many of the very men who were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. If the members of the Convention did not believe they had the constitutional right to pass those measures they should never have fooled the Parliament and the country by passing them. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZC</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O'LOGHLIN, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator O'LOGHLIN</name>
</talker>
<para>-Colonel O'Loghlin. - Liberal Ministries. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Liberal . or Fusion Ministries, or Progressive Democrats, or whatever name they were passing under during the various stages of their existence. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</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>- It would be interesting, and perhaps historical, if a list showing the names of the Bills, and by whom they were introduced, were published in the columns of <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be extremely interesting, but as I do not wish to cover all the ground myself, I shall be pleased if, before the debate is finished, some other honorable senator will supply my short-comings in that respect. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</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 would indeed be appropriate to introduce that into a nonparty debate. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not make a single party statement until I got a party interjection from the other side, and I shall not allow an interjection to convey an impression that I am dealing in a party way with a measure of this kind, especially when, as a matter of fact, I can prove that nearly every Bill passed by both Houses of this Parliament, and subsequently disallowed by the High Court, was assisted in its passage by the very men who sat on the Convention that drafted the Constitution, and who firmly believed that they had power to legislate in those directions. I shall quote their own words to show that some of the leading men belonging to the party opposite actually asked for consti tutional amendments of such a nature as we are now introducing. So much for the claim that these are party measures. I say to the small but intellectual Opposition, "I invite amendments to these Bills that will give us the powers we are asking for in a better form than that in which we have put them forward." I invite them, when the Committee stage is reached, not to make general statements that our Bills are too cumbersome, and take too large powers, but to draft in clear and definite language, amendments which will be an improvement. I promise that the Government will be prepared to accept anything better than wo have proposed. If our draftsmanship shows that we are taking more powers than are needed, and their draftsmanship can clearly define the powers that are needed, I am prepared to give their amendments the fullest and freest consideration. That offer was made in the other House by the Attorney-General - which reminds me that, although on previous occasions the Bills were passed in another place by the necessary majorities, and with fairly big minorities against them, they were passed on this occasion in another place by a unanimous vote. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</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>- A unanimous vote, and the " gag." </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4664</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am pleased that they were passed at a time like this without opposition in another place, and I hope the electors outside, when the Bills come before them, will follow that splendid example; and, even if they cannot see their way to vote for them,, will allow the people who voted for them on previous occasions to take the responsibility of carrying them this time, by themselves refraining from going to the polling booth. That is a fair position for men who find themselves up against the inevitable. If I sat on the benches opposite. confident as I always am in the right of my own side, I could not survey the figures of the previous votes without feeling convinced that it is only a matter of time before the electors of the Commonwealth adopt these amendments, or amendments more drastic. One cardinal mistake was made in framing the Constitution, Instead of having a Federation in which the States had sovereign powers, and the Commonwealth delegated powers, we should have had a Constitution in which the Australian Parliament had the sovereign powers and the States the delegated powers. Had that been done, it would have meant, not the bringing about of Unification, but that, whenever the Federal Parliament passed a law which clashed with a State law, the Federal law would be supreme. Instead of having to wait after a law was passed for actions to be taken before the High Court, and for the High Court to tell us that, because one part of it was unconstitutional the whole law must fall to the ground, we should have been in the position of the British Parliament, and the will of the two Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth would have become, whenever expressed in legislation, the law of Australia. That would have been a sound system to adopt; but I do not blame the framers of the Constitution for not adopting it. In these advancing days of civilization, there are engineers in our mechanical workshops who know a great deal more about a locomotive than did its first inventor. There are ordinary mechanics to-day who know more than Robert Stephenson knew. If our Australian Fleet was deprived of its officers, and its management left to the men, it would still be a Fleet before which the Fleet with which Nelson won his famous victories would not last very long. I do not want adversely to criticise the framers of the Constitution. They gave us what is, after all, a workable instrument of government; and the chief reason why it is workable is that they made it possible for the people to amend it if they desired to do so. I come back to some of the opinions of prominent men belonging to the party opposite as to the necessity for constitutional amendments. In a memorandum written by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Garran,</inline> at the request of the Deakin Government, in response to an inquiry from the Premier of Natal as to how the Constitution worked in actual practice, the following statements appear: - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The trade and commerce power ought not to bo divided between States and Commonwealth. The limitation to Inter-State and external commerce bisects the subject of trade and commerce, and makes a hard-and-fast division of jurisdiction, of which it is difficult to determine the boundaries, and which does not correspond with any natural distinction in the conduct of business. It would be more satisfactory, if feasible, to take power over trade and commerce generally. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Groom,</inline>the then AttorneyGeneral, indorsed that memorandum with this statement : - </para>
<quote>
<para>I have carefully perused the memorandum, and I fully agree with the views expressed. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline>sent the memorandum to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Moor,</inline> Premier of Natal, and to the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Again the Hon. TV. H. Irvine, E.G., speaking of the Referendum Bills in 1910, supported the trade and commerce amendment, which went further than even the present one. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>I have come to the conclusion that this amendment of the Constitution ought to be made. We should have complete power over trade and commerce. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin,</inline>in his second memorandum on new Protection, declared - </para>
<quote>
<para>As the power to protect the manufacturer is national, it follows that, unless the Parliament of the Commonwealth also acquires power to secure fair and reasonable conditions of employment to wage-earners, the policy of Protection must remain incomplete. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">He recommended an amendment of the Constitution to give effect to this. Then I find this statement - </para>
<quote>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. P.</inline>McM Glynn, the AttorneyGeneral in <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline> Deakin's Government, in a lengthy memorandum, stated in plain terms that the powers under the Constitution with regard to trusts and combines and industrial matters were most unsatisfactory; that, out of thirty-three combines here, the Commonwealth could deal with but three or four, and none of these could be completely dealt with without an amendment of the Constitution; that the States could not deal with trusts and combines. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">And he recommended that the Constitution be amended to enable Parliament to make laws with respect to " trusts, combinations, and monopolies in restraint of trade in any State or portion of the Commonwealth." Even the State Premiers agreed that the Constitution should be amended. I have quoted those opinions of leaders of the Liberal party, and from a publication which has been circulated broadcast, and although it has been in circulation for some years, not one of the statements accredited to those gentlemen has once been contradicted. That is why I use a public document which they have had the full opportunity of either contradicting or denying if they were inaccurately quoted. Let us use the chief brains of the legal sectio'n of the Liberal party. I refer to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Glynn, Mr. Deakin, Mr. Irvine,</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Groom,</inline> who, </para>
<para class="block">I think, fairly represent the party. I have no desire to make an invidious comparison with our legal friends opposite, and I do not quote from their speeches, because no such handy reprints of what they have said are available. The gentlemen I have cited are, I think, fairly representative of those who say that these measures involve party questions. If those leaders say that such amendments of the Constitution are necessary, how can any one honestly say that we are simply asking the electors to put op a party fight? I speak with all earnestness to the representatives of the other side, who have during this crisis - and I acknowledge the fact publicly - given us a generous support in dealing with war matters. If we, as a party, believed that, for the welfare of the people of the Commonwealth, the amendments <inline font-style="italic">were</inline> necessary four or two years ago, now, in the time of war, they are doubly or trebly necessary. If they were needful then to protect the people from the growth of trusts and combines, I contend that at present there is a tenfold need why we should have the additional powers. Let us examine the situation. What is the position which our honorable friends are putting up now? They are saying, " Why not exert your war powers ? Why not use the reserve powers which a Government engaged in such a contest has the right to use at any time or moment?" In my view, the reason is that it is safer for a self-governing people to follow the well-beaten track of law and order. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator Stewart</name>
</talker>
<para>- In war time? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, in war time. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">STEWART, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator Stewart</name>
</talker>
<para>- All right. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- So far as I am concerned, we will never go out of our way to use the inherent powers of a Government at a time like this, if it is possible, without first consulting the representatives of the people. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917</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>-len. - What powers are you using with regard to the sugar transaction ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable senator not to take me off the track. He knows what failings I have for drifting into something which I do not know much about. It is very easy to say to the Government, "You can use any power you like to make good if certain measures are needed for the war, and the .people will support you in your action." But I point out that it is wise for those who are called upon to act to refrain from using emergent powers till the last moment. The last act of a Government which represents the interests of the people should be to use the powers they undoubtedly possess when those powers can be obtained, perhaps a little more slowly, but much more effectively, by asking the Parliament to pass legislation empowering the Ministers to do what they wish to do. Let us look at the action of the British Parliament, which, I ventureto say, is almost within sound of the guns: which are threatening its very existence. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KLZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GOULD, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould</name>
</talker>
<para>- And ours. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- And ours. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K18</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
</talker>
<para>- Their sugar deal did not turn out very well. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4666</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Although the British Parliament has sovereign powers- - not powers limited by a printed Constitution such as ours is - can my honorable friends opposite point to one case where the British Government have exceeded the powers given to them by the law of the land? Can they point definitely to> one case where the British Government have used their emergent war powers <inline font-style="italic">t</inline> They have done nothing of the kind. They have asked Parliament, in every case, to give them power, so that they may go safely step by step, and not create precedents which might prove awkward at a later period. I am rather proud of being associated with colleagues in a Government who say, " If the emergent powers have to be used, we will not fear to use them," but until the time for compulsion comes, we shall ask the peopleto give us additional powers to enable us to continue in the course which my honorable friends many years ago were fond of pointing out, and that is the safe course of law and order. In other words, we shall ask the Parliament to make clear the way in which we should go. We propose to consult the Parliament, and, therefore, the people, on everything we intend to do. Let us see how strange this cry of " Use the war powers " is, compared with the statements of two years- ago Perhaps I may be permitted to refer here incidentally to Melbourne newspapers, and to the party cry which has !been raised - " These are either party powers or war powers. If they are war powers, are you going to wait for a considerable time before you can use them? Do you intend to let the war go on and do nothing?" </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K18</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAKHAP, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator Bakhap</name>
</talker>
<para>- But you want them for times of peace. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- We did. <inline font-weight="bold">'Senator Bakhap.</inline> - That is the paradox. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- "We wanted the powers in times of peace. I said a moment ago, aud I am sorry that the honorable senator did not hear my statement, which was made loudly enough, that in times of war we want the powers with a great deal more urgency. It is well that he should understand that. But when we did seek the powers in times of peace, let me state plainly what the other party said .about our request, and I think it will be admitted to be a fair summing up of their statements. They said that, urged on by a little band of tyrants in the Trades Hall, we wanted huge powers with which we could exploit the thrifty; that we could attack the men who, by business capacity and ability, had built up huge fortunes, and worry the thriftless, urged on by the Trades Hall ; that we wanted to exploit the trading community. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</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>- Did you say that the other party said that? </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I say that .your -party did. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</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 it must have been a party matter? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>4667</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>