Download Fragment

Wednesday, 22 October 1919

Mr YATES (Adelaide) . - I in-' dorse the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor) regarding the decease of a candidate between the date of nomination and election day. I said last night that we ought to try to approximate our electoral laws to the wishes of the general community, and the insertion of a provision for the nomination of a substitute in the event of the nominee of one party dying before election day is one means of doing that. In an electorate such as Yarra, if the Labour candidate dies before election day, another candidate, who does not represent the views of the majority of the people in the district, will be elected. The late Senator McGregor died on the day after nominations for the Senate closed, and it was necessary for the Labour party in South Australia, in order to conserve their strength to decide to concentrate the Labour vote upon one of the Liberal candidates. The result was the election of Senator Shannon by a total vote which is never likely to be equalled by any Senate candidate in that State. He received all the votes of Labour supporters - and Labour at that time was predominant in South Australia - and also the straggling Liberal backing. But in that case the death of a candidate did not make such a great difference, because he was only one of a party team of six. In a single member constituency the effect of the death of a candidate is much worse, because it may leave the majority of people in the district disfranchised for the following three years. There is no logical reason for the elimination of that portion of the existing law.

My chief purpose in speaking on this Bill is to refer to the continuance of Part 3 of the principal Act, which deals with the disqualification of certain persons. That disqualification was inserted while the country was at war, and the majority of the sections deal with enemy subjects. For all practical purposes we are no longer at war. We are only awaiting the carrying out of certain parliamentary formalities in different countries in connexion with the ratification of the Peace Treaty when all countries will again be on an equality, and there will be no longer any enemy aliens. Nearly all our troops have returned, and there is now no fear of aggression from any other country. It is misleading to say that we are still in any sense in a state of war.We shallbe doing an injustice to many good patriotic and loyal citizens if we continue in operation that part of the existing Act which forbids voting by persons born in any of the countries of our former enemies. They were disfranchised, not only in regard to the conscription referendum - an issue that was held at the time to be vital to the country - but also for the coming general election, which will determine the composition of this Parliament for the next three years. They as citizens will be required to pay whatever taxation is imposed by the new Parliament, but will have no opportunity by recording their votes of securing representation. That provision is distinctly vicious in its application. As far as the War Precautions Act allowed, the Government came down heavily on any person who was supposed to be disloyal during the war, and disloyalists have been searched for with a fine tooth-comb. I am advised that a lot of persons were interned, not because of any disloyal utterance or action, but in order that they might be kept under surveillance and restraint, and thus have no opportunity to do anything to the detriment of the Commonwealth while we were at war. A large body of those who were held not to be loyal citizens have been, or are being, deported. Therefore, the persons against whom the disqualification was directed are no longer a menace to the country. Perhaps that disqualification will apply more severely to the Angas electorate than to any other part of South Australia, because it contains more German villages and settlers than any other district. Whilst we might during the time of war look askance at, and be suspicious of, any person with a German name, the Minister will admit that a large number of the German settlers could not be more loyal ifthey were British-born. These people are to be disfranchised, not because there is anything against them, but because during the war it was thought advisable not to. give them an opportunity to swing their votes in favour of their country of origin on the question of conscription. But quite a different set of circumstances confront us to-day; and if we are to be just to those people, we must give them their rights as free naturalized British subjects. Our boasted British freedom is being put to the test; and it is to be hoped that these citizens will not be denied the right of saying who shall be their rulers for the next three years.

Part III. of the original Act, which deals with the disqualification of certain persons, provides -

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W Elliot Johnson - The honorable member is not in order in reading sections of the principal Act which are outside the scope of the amendments proposed by the Bill. '

Mr YATES - I wish to indicate that in Committee I shall move to delete the whole of Part III. of the original Act.

Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member is not in order in quoting the sections at length now, and his proposal is outside the order of leave.

Mr YATES - 'These citizens, in order to prove their bona fides, and obtain the right' to vote, have to subject themselves to what I consider is a humiliation. A man who may have offered himself for enlistment and have been rejected has to obtain a certificate from the Defence Department in verification of that fact. Further, men who have been overseas must also prove the fact by producing a document obtained from the Defence Department. "We all know that every discharged soldier carries his discharge in his pocket ; and I should think that ought to be sufficient to prove his bona fides. It is according to British instincts and tradition that after a fight, whether we be the victors or the defeated, we are prepared to shake hands; but that spirit is not observed in the Bill before us. Although it is twelve months since the signing of the armistice, which represents the end of the war, it is proposed to continue these iniquitous provisions, which apply not only to disloyal people, but to loyal British subjects. Originally, these provisions were intended to apply only to a referendum on the question of conscription ; and I do not see that any honorable member can justly oppose a proposal to delete the whole of Part III. of the original Act. The class of citizens to whom I am referring pay their taxes, and we mix with them socially on level terms; nevertheless, the disabilities in force dur ing the war are to be continued when it comes to electing a Parliament for the next three years.

Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member must not proceed further on those lines. What he is discussing now is outside the scope, and purpose of this amending Bill, which relates to certain sectionof the Act, and does not include the sections now being debated by the honorable member.

Mr YATES -I take it. that when I submit an amendment in Committee I shall be permitted to extend my remarks on the desirability of repealing this portion of the Act. I hope that the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) will take note of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Tudor), and of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Sinclair), and reconsider the question of the substitution of a candidate when the original candidate happens to die between the nomination and the election.

---