Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Tuesday, 3 June 1902

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania) - I can answer at once, satisfactorily answer, the question which has been put by the honorable member for Bland in regard to Mr.Whitelaw's deposit. That deposit will be returned. It is not proposed to deduct anything whatever from it, and as a matter of fact the costs in this case differ somewhat from costs in connexion with higher tribunals in that they are comparatively insignificant. In fact, I do not know that any costs were incurred. As to the report, I shall adhere to it loyally as one of the persons who signed it. At the same time I desire to say that it does not entirely embody my views regarding the position. For my own part I think that Mr. Hartnoll, in giving his consent to be nominated as he did, although not formally complying with the wording of the law, did substantially and sufficiently comply therewith to satisfy a court of equity. Of course the object of the Act is to prevent a dummy candidate, without his consent, from being put up at the last moment to split the votes for some other candidate, and thus defeat the latter.

Mr Deakin - I would not argue the matter too much.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON - I do not propose to argue it, because I have not attempted to force my opinion upon the committee. The report which I have signed is that of the committee, without any demur on my part.

Mr Deakin - The strength of the right honorable member's position is to be found in the unanimity of the committee.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON - I was very glad that the committee were unanimous, and, therefore, I was pleased to attach my name to the report, even though it did not embody my own views of the situation.

Suggest corrections