Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 24 July 1902

Mr MAUGER (MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA) - Candidates do not attempt to go to that expense.

Mr V L SOLOMON (SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - I have been told that the return of some of the gentlemen who were elected in Victoria cost them thousands of pounds.

Mr Mauger - But others did not spend £50.

Mr V L SOLOMON (SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - I am using this information only to point the argument that, whilst we are entitled to insist that no candidate shall incur more than a reasonable expenditure, we are not acting wisely in limiting that expenditure to such an extent as to preclude a candidate for an outside district containing a scattered population from fairly placing his views before the electors. As the honorable member for Yarra interjected just now, the Senate has agreed to limit the expenditure of candidates for that House to £230.- Whether its members intend religiously to adhere to that provision . is their business, and not mine. But I certainly think that in elections for the House of Representatives, if it be possible to discriminate between metropolitan and outside constituencies in this connexion, it would be wise to do so.

Mr O'Malley - L - Let us limit it to £50 for city electorates and to £100 for country constituencies.

Mr V L SOLOMON (SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - .To my mind, to insert a limit of £100 in connexion with a country electorate would be an utter absurdity. Even to send a circular through the post to each elector in a district containing 20,000 voters would cost more than the amount prescribed. I intend to move that the limit in regard to the expenditure of candidates for the House of Representatives shall be £200.

Suggest corrections