Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Friday, 20 October 1905

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia) - I think that we should omit the words "he is satisfied" in sub-clause 2 of the proposed substituted clause, because, in my opinion, they give a discretion to the divisional returning officer. Although a person might be entitled to be enrolled, still it might be held that the divisional returning officer was not thoroughly satisfied as to that fact. It will be remembered that the corresponding clause of the original Electoral Bill contained these words, and that after discussionthey were omitted.

Senator Millen - The honorable senator will remember that there is a difference now in the preparation of a roll.

Senator PEARCE - There is no difference as to a cLaim. In the other case, a claim had to go before the returning officer, who had to put the name on the roll, and the only difference was that ihe original list had to go before the Revision Court. If a man is entitled to be enrolled, his name must be added. The clause will not lose any of its usefulness by the omission of words which introduce a vague element. Therefore I move -

That the words " he is satisfied," line 18, be left out.

Suggest corrections