Addrn-i-Reiy: [23M~r 190.J Presentation. 57

sideratian, this House should realisethat the Government have done allin their power to have this Bill re-ferred to the people; and I believethat in the judgment of every independentperson, and of everyone who is not prej u-diced by partyv or some other influence,they will be acquitted of having dealt insuch a. manner with the Bill as to preventits being referred. It has been my earnestdesire that the Bill should go to the peopleor to the electors, whichever muay bedecided; and if the people of the colonyare determined to federate, I am not oneto pince any obstacle in the way, beyondthat 1 shall vote against federation whenthe time comes. I say, advisedly andseriously, that it is not my intention tovote for federation, although I think it isonlv right and just that the people shouldgive a vote on the question. I do notthink I need sky any more. If I were toattempt to follow Mr. M~atbeson it wouldtake me much too long, and, besides, thereis not the slightest necessity to do so onthis occasion. The Enabling Bill will nodoubt reach us from another place in ashort time, and hon. members will havefull opportunity for discussing the variousclauses, and deciding what is best in theinterests of the country. I only hope weshall take into consideration this seriousand most important step-a step whichcannot be retraced-with a, deep sense ofthe consequences which are likely to ensueto this country. Possibly some of us aremistaken in thinking federation will hedisastrous, while others on the other handmay be mistaken in thinking it will be ofgreat benefit to the countr~y and start usafresh on the high road to prosperity andwealth. Both sides may be mistaken,and possibly we may arrive at a middlecourse which will be acceptable to theinhabitants of thisi colony. I would liketo say one word in reference to the enlarge-ment of tile franchise. I do not thinkfor a moment that. any member of thecommunity who calmly and quietly reflectscan think of pitting the man or womanwho has been in the colony for sixmonths, against a person who has hisall1 here, has his property here, has beenhere for years and. understands theinterests of the colony, and can possiblyfarm. a very good judgment as to what islikely to affect its prosperity. That isthe reason we caninot have voting on

a population basis pure and simple,because we must recognise every interestmu this great country, and must have nopreponderating influence by the gold-mining or any one industry ; but wemust have a representation of all thewealth, intelligence, and interests through-out the colony. That is almost a truismwhich every hon. member will indorse;and for a moment to think that thiscountry should be governed by a numberof memnbers who come from one indus-try-say the gold-mining industry, whichI think has been hinted at to-night byMr. Matheson-would, in my opinion, bedestructive of the best interets of thecolony, would retard its progress, andprobably end in its ruin.

Question-that the Addres s-in -reply beadopted-put and passed.

ADJOURNMENT.The House adjourned at 8-22 o'clock

until the next day.

Wednesday, 23rd May, 1900.

Address-inu-repl; Presentatioin - Paper presented-Queston Public Holidays, to restrict taterin aJntce - Privilege: Aspersions on Le yueAucmly by a Member Oersldton)r-Fe emtiunEnabling Bill, second reading (moved)-Adjouru.ment.

THu SPEAKER took the Chair at4-30 o'clock, p.m.

PiRunYES.

ADDRESS-mN-REPLY-PRESENT&TION.By arrangement, Mr. Speaker and hon.

mnenmbers proceeded to Govern ment House,to present the Address-in-reply to HisExcellency the Administrator; and,having returned,

Addresa-i-n-Reply: [23 MAY, 1900.]

58 Public Holidays. [ASM Y. ApeiosnAseb.

THn SPEAKER reported that HisExcellency had been pleased to reply asfollows:

I thank you for your Address-in-reply tothe Speech with which I opened Parliament,and am glad to be assured of your continuedloyalty and devotion to the person and throneof our Most Gracious Sovereign.

I receive with satisfaction your assurancethat your most careful consideration will begiven to the special matter, as well as to allothers that may be submitted to you, so thatyour labours may result in the permianentadvancement and prosperity of the colony.

PAPER PRESENTED.By the PREMIER: Report of Educa-

tion Department for 1899.Ordered to lie on the table.

QUESTION-PUBLIC HOLIDAYS, TORESTRICT.

ALTERING A NOTICE.

MR. HALL rose to ask, the Premier aquestion, of which lie bad given notice inthe following form :-Whetber lie wouldin the fu ture be more sparing of grantingpublic holidays, in consequence of theloss sustained by' the shopkeepers ofPerth, and general disorganisation oftrade caused thereby.

MR. HALL said: Before asking thequestion, I would like, as a matter ofprivilege, to ask the reason of the addi-tion of the word " alleged " before " loss "in the question as it now appears on theNotice Paper. You see, sir, it makesmy question now a matter of opinion,whereas it was before made to be amatter of fact.

THE SPEAXER : The Clerk of theRouse has infor-med me that the reasonwhy he made the alteration in the formof notice given by the lion. member, wasthat the question might comply with therules of the House. The assertion thatthere had been a loss, as stated in theoriginal question, was a mere matter of

opinion, whereas in the form in whichtheqestion now appears upon the NoticePaper, it is not so.

MR. HALL: I now beg to ask thejPremier the question as it appears on the1

Notice Paper.THE PREMIER replied: I am not

aware to which holidays the lion. mem-ber refers. No complaint has reachedme as to public holidays being grantedtoo often.

PRIVILEGE -ASPERSIONS ON LEGIS-LATIVE ASSEMBLY BY A MEMBER(GRAaLDTON).

MR. MOORHEA-D (North Murchi-son): As a question of privilege, I desireto bring under the attention of the Housea matter of rather grave import. Itwould appear that in the issue of a news-paper known as the CGeraldton Advertiser,dated the 26th February of this year,there appeared a report of some remarksmade by an hon. mnemlber of this House,which reflect seriously on the character ofthe House and on some of its members.I do not wish to comment upon thoseobservations at present, but I wishformally to bring the matter under thenotice of the House, and I thereforemove:

That the hon. member for Geraldton (Mr.Robson) be ordered to attend in this House onthe next Tuesday, the 29th instant.

THE SPEAKER: The proper coursewould be for the hon. member to lay onthe table the report to which he refers,and to move that the report be read bythe Clerk, after which the hon. membermight make his motion.

MR. MOORHEAD: I move accord-inglY:

That the report to which I have referred,containing these allegations, be read by theClerk.

THE SPEAKER: It will be sufficientat present to read the prt'eWs, and not thewhole speech as reported.

The CLERK accordingly read ayrdisi ofthe speech, as follows:-

1. That the Government was corrupt androtten to the core.

2. That he would expose the politicalcorruption and rottenness lie encountered lastsession.

3. That the Government had withdrawnthe BRn-al Lands Improvement Bill in theUpper House, practically to buy the supportof the fanning element in that House.

4. That many of the members of theLegislative Assembly appeared to be withoutvisible means of support.

5. That he hnd discovered there was agroup of old financiers interested in keeping theGovernment in office, andi that they paidmembers.

6. 'hat in further substantiation of thecharge he had made of political rottenness, hehad an Assurance fron one of the powersbehind the throne that if he would sit on theGovernment cross-benches he would havefinancial Assistance; that he had declined,and that they could not buy him.

[ASSEMBLY.] Aspersions on Assembly.

Prvieg:[23 MA~Y, 1900.] Aspesions on Assemblyt.

7. That an attempt had been made tobribe him in connection with the Sluicing andDredging Bill.

8. That the foregoing statements justifiedhis accusations of political corruption androttenness.

MR. MOORHEAD: I formally move,further:

That the hon. member for Geraldton beordered to attend in his place in this Houseon Tuesday, the 29th instant, to explain theassertions be is reported to have made respect-ing the honurable character of this Roume.

MR. HARPER: I second that.MR. IUYINOWOETH (Central Mur-

chison) : Before a motion of this characterwas made, it would be more courteous tothe House if the mover had waited untilthe member whose conduct is referredto was in his place. TIhe member forGeraldton (Mr. Robson) is detained bynecessary business, and is not in Perthat present; and I think it would be morecourteous if the hon. member (Mr.Moorhead) bad waited until the memberfor Geraldton was present. At any rate,the mnember for Geraldton should havesome notice given.

MR. A. FORREST: He knew, it wascoming on.

MR. ILLINGWQRTH: I think themotion which the lion. member asks thisHouse to pass, a motion practicallycalling upon the member for Geraldtonto answer questions in his place in thisHouse, at the will of the House, mightat least have given to the House somereasons for the course lie proposes totake. Seeing there is practically a pledgebetween the leader of the House (thePremier) and myself that the business ofthis special session, as far as we are re-sponsible for it, shall be confined to theone subject for which this session hasbeen convened, I think it would be muchbetter if the question now raised weredeferred until the ordinary sitting of theHouse in the next session. A questionof this kind is calulated to take up agreat amount of time, and to bring a vastamount of acrimony into our debates.At present we have a subject on whichthere is scarcely any difference of opinion,and we have been called together for theexpress purpose of carrying out the wishesof the Government in regard to thatquestion. I have afready intimated, inmy observations from this side of theHouse, that it is the desire of myself and

members on this side to confine the busi-ness of this special session to the specificsubject which has brought us here. Ithink that to bring a subject of this con-tentious character on the floor of theHouse at the present time would be veryinconvenient, and that it might bebrought forward much more convenientlyat a sitting of the House in the ordinarysession, which is not far off. That coursewould be more in harmony with thefeelings of hon. members, and more cal-culated to produce the result which themover of this motion no doubt desires.I take it that he desires we should havethis question properly discussed and fullyventilated, and, if any wrong has beendone, that the wrong should be righted. Ithink it is alnost impossible, if some.wrong has been done, that it could berighted this session in the way proposedin the motion. Such a course would onlylead to waste of time, and to aocrimony ofspirit altogether foreign to this House.This being my view of the matter, Imove, as an amendment on the motion,that the words " next Tuesday " be struckout, and the words " the second Tuesdayafter the meeting of the House in thleordinary session " be inserted in lieu.

MR. G1REGORY: I second the amend-ment.

THE PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J.Forrest): While I heartily appreciate andam grateful to the hon. member (Mr.Illingworth) for his desire to assist theGovernment to bring this special sessionto a dlose as early as possible, and whileI would willingly haive nothing whateverto do with this very painful matter at thepresent time, yet I feel that if this Housetook no notice whatever now of thispainful episode, our action might bealtogether misunderstood and misco~n-strued.

MR. ILLINGWORtTH: Not if you takethis action.

THE PREMIER: I even questionwhether it is quite parliamentary to dealwith a question that has come up in aprevious session, if a session has come inbetween. Still, those who have anythingto sayv ought to say it at the very earliestmoment, and not defer it to another time.I am surprised, I must say, at the actiontaken by the bon. member (Mr. Tiling-worth), because he is just as muchinterested as I amn in this matter. If

Privilege :

60 Piviege [ASEMBY.] Asperionse on Assembly.

this newspaper report is accurate andcan be substantiated, it reflects on thehonour and integrity of this House;said I think every one of us desiresthat the honour and integrity of thisHouse shall be without reproach. Itseems to me, at any rate, whatever otheraction might be taken, that it is dueto the member for Geraldton himselfthat he should have an opportunity ofsaying what he has to say in this House.Probably the explanation he can give inregard to this matter may, be altogethersatisfactory to hon. members. We haveonly a newspaper report before us, and weknow that mistakes are made in reports,and that the hon. member may have beenmisunderstood, or misrepresented, or mayhave been misreported; and it is due tohim that the very earliest opportunityshould be given for explaining what he isreported to have said. Reference hasbeen made to the fact that the bon.member is not present; but I take itthere is nothing in that, because I do notsuppose any one of us would be preparedito agree in passing a motion on his con-duct in his absence, or do it off-hand.Time would be necessary, and the moverof this motion has mentioned Tuesdaynext as the time for the member forGeraldton to be in his place here; and ifthat hon. member is not in his place onTuesday next, I have no doubt the matterwill be postponed even to a later day. Icannot think for a moment that we wouldbe doing right, as members of this Hops,in sitting here and going on with thebusiness of the country while charges ofthis kind were hanging over us ; and itmight be said of us that we wereindifferent to the allegations made b ythe member for Geraldton, and were quitecontent to defer inquiry into them tillsome more convenient season. I think itmight be said we were afraid of thesethings; that we were trying to put themoff, in order that time might comein between, and might allay the feel-ings of indignation of hion. members.I think the least we can do, viewing thesituation not only from the position ofhon. members themselves, but from thepoint of view of the hon. member forGeralciton, is to let that lion. memberhave the earliest opportunity given himto state what he did say, and to sub-stantiate, if hie can, what he has stated.

This procedure which the member forNorth Murchison (Mi-. Moorhead) hastaken is absolutely in accordance withParliamentary usage; and it is not likelythat the hon mnemdber would bring for-ward a motion that was not in accordwith Parliamentar y practice. .It is abso-lutely in accord with the procedureadopted in other places, in similar cir-cumstances.

MR. ILLINGOOTH: In a specialsession ?

THE PREMIER: Even in a specialsession. I agree with the hon. member(Mr. Illingworth) in regard to everyother matter. But a special session can-not. override the consideration of thehonour of members of this House. Thatis another matter altogether. Our honourand our integrity are above all other con-siderations. [SEvnuAl MEMBEns: Hear,hear.] If we postpone a question involv-ing our integrity and our honour as men,as members of the Legislature, and astrusted officers of the public, if we deferthat question in order that some weeksmay elas, we shall be guilty of a greaterror. I say there is no other considera-tion so great: neither federation nor ayother 'ation is so great or so important tothe people of this colony, as the goodfaith and honour of their representativesin Parliament. What are these insinua-tions, innuendoes, or charges? Theymean, if they mean anything, the personaldishonour of members of this Hlouse,and the personal dishonour of myselfand all the members of the Government.Then, am I to sit still in this Housebecause of the Federation Bill or any otherBill being before us, or because this is aspecial session? Am I to stand or sithere and say, " Defer this matterP" Ifthese things are true, I no longer have aright to sit in this House: I deserve tobe hounded and hurled oat of public life;and other members of the House are inthe same position. Are we to delay sucha matter? Does the lion. member adviseme to do that-to defer this matterbecause we are dealing with an importantsubject in a special session ?

MR. ILLINGwORTH: Why did younotcall a, special session to attend to thesubject of this motion ?

THE PREMIER: This is the firstopportunity we have had of dealing withthe matter. The lion, member (Mr.

60 Privilege; [ASSEMBLY.]

Pivieg:[23 MAY, 1900.] Aspersions8 ou Assembly. 61

Illingworth) has a high position in thisHouse, in which he has been placed byhis fellows on that (Opposition) side. Iwarn him, I adjure him to be careful ofthe position in which lie is placed; andabove all things, above every other con-sideration he can think of, let hinm seethat the honour and integrit 'Y of membersof this Rouse are maintained.

MR. IlLINGWORTH: Thanks for theadvice.

THE: PREMIER: Yes; I say it isgood. I shall go out of this House, andshall never enter it again, if these chargesbe true; and I say thelatwcndothleast every man in ti onr xetus to do, is to see that the hion. member(Mr. Robson) substantiates his charges,or that he withdraws them, or that atany rate he explains to this House thereasons that actuated him in makingthem. I speak warmly, because I amwarm, and because my honour and thehonour of my friends around me has beenattacked. [ MR. GEORGE: I am here too.]And what is the use of our sitting herewith these chitrges unanswered ? Are wehere to pass Bills, or to legislate in anyway, when we are charged with corrup-tion ? I say, the least we can do is topass this motion, brought forward socourteously by the member for NorthMurchison, a motion which ought to havebeen passed on the voices, and then Ishould not hiave had to make the speechI have made to-day.

MR. GEORGE (Murray): The righthon. gentleman has been somewhat overwarm-[SVVr&AL MEMBERS: No, no]-but he will pa~don me for Baying that,because I believe he is sincere in what hehas said. I think he will agree with methat it is hardly fair to hit a man behindhis back; and although it would appear,from what has been published, that themember for Geraldton has hit the other48 members of this House behind theirbacks, still we will not, as far as I amconcerned, follow a course that wouldpractically amount to hitting him in hisabsence. I quite agree with the Premier.that it is a right thing-and this will notbe denied by the leader of the Oppo-sition-for this House to take coguisanceof the accusations which are said to havebeen made; but personally I do notbelieve the honour of this House willsuffer in the slightest degree by deferring

this inquiry until the next session of Par-liament. I may be wrong, but I think Iam right.

ME. A. FORREST: How can wre sitwith the man ?

MR. GEORGE: The hon. member hasasked a question to which I will notreply, because I do not think it rightthat such a question should be asked.Until the member for Geraldton has hadan opportunity of stating his case, wehave no right, either as politicians or asmen, to condemn him unheard.

MR. Hronz: Then give him the firstopportunity of proving his charges.

MR. A. FORREST: Next Tuesday.Mn. GEORGE: This session, as has

been said by the leader of the Opposition,has been called for the special purposeof federation; and the Premier has prac-tically asked this House not to bringforward any other business. [The Pas-Mm: Hear, hear.] He has called uponus to come here, at what is to many aninconvenient time, to discuss the burningquestion of the day; and for that pur-pose I have attended this session. Ifthis motion be passed, and the memberfor Geraldton be called on to answer forwhat he is alleged to have said, I shallcertainly take every opportunity andevery chance I can get to see that everyother member of this House shall givehim a fair hearing; but I do ask bon.members not to be precipitate, not tohasten to stnike at a muan who is notpresent to answer for himself.

MR. A. FORREST: We are not strikinghim.

Ms. Hionnix: He can be here onTuesday.

MR. GEORGE : Though I do notbelieve the statements made can be sub-stantiated, yet I think we shall find thehon. member can give some explanationvery different from those contained in

nwpprrep~orts. I also am thoroughlycnicdit is quite right there should

be a full inquiry, because it is notfrom the member for Geraldton alone,but from the Press in different partsof this country, that allegations havebeen made against all and sundrymembers of this House. In the gold-fields Press it has undoubtedly been saidthat members of this House have soiledtheir reputations and damaged the

P,?ivilege:

62 Piviege (ASEMBY.] Aspersions on Assembly.

honour of Parliament by accepting blocksof ]and for services they should neverhave rendered; and that is the reasonwhy I shall move for that return to-morrow of which I have given notice,because the next time I go to the gold-fields, and when I am accused of belonggto a House which has so degraded itselfI shall be able to say, either that thoseallegations are false, or, if they are true,that I am ashamed to belong to theLegislature of Western Australia. I shallvote with the leader of the Opposition,and I think the Premier, on consideration,will find he will lose nothing of diestrength of his case by acting withgenerosity to an absent opponent.

THts Panuza: He will be here onTuesday.

MnR. MORAN (East Coolgardie): -.Lamnot quite sure that we shall ever haveanother session of this Parliament. Idoubt if we ever shall. Who can guaran-tee it? The Government, which haslived so long, may not live through thissession or through the next. It is pos-sible this House muay dissolve before thisfederation question is settled; and thenwe dissolve never more to meet. Themembers who are here now-at all events,a good many of themn-may never comeback to this House. No man wants toretire from Parliament, to find himself,in the near future, in a. position where hecannot effectively defend his character;so "1now is the accepted time. " Imay say that on talking the matterover with others, and with some inauthority, I advised that we shouldnot deal with the matter this session.That was my opinion till the gravityof the position was placed before me;and nobody who has beard the Premierthis afternoon can doubt how he feelsabout the matter. I do not think Iever saw the right hon. gentleman sodeeply moved before as he was thisafternoon. 1, therefore, confess it wouldbe absolutely unjust to the Premier inparticular, as leader of this (Govern-ment) side of the Rouse, and it. wouldnot be fair to the member for Geraldton,to let this matter istand over; for sup-posing Parliament dissolve this session- -a thing which can and may, happen-the member for Gerttldton may not comeback to Parliament. Then he must goout of Parliament without having any

opportunity of substantiating his charges.If anything happened to prevent thathon. member being heard on Tuesday,I for one should absolutely oppose any-thing being done in this matter till hewas in his Bst; but let us bear in mindthat no attack has beeu made this even-ing upon the membher for Geraldton -

none whatever. He is in one of two, orrather one of three, positions. He wasmisrepresented by the Press, in whichcase it is due to us and himself to hearhim;- or he has made accusations whichprove him to be either a social purifierand a, political ad Parliamentary purifier;or, thirdly, he is something else whichrhymes accurately with purifier. He is inone of these three positions. The man hasmade base and groundless charges, or hehas made charges which will stamp him asbeing at once a clever man, a courageousman, and one who is not afraid toattempt the task of cleansing the " Augeanstable " into which he has lately beentaken as an assistant. I say under theseconditions we must go on with thismatter now; but that, "must" neednot involve any undue haste. NextTuesday the hon. member will prob-ably be here. If not, we shall adjournthe inquiry. He should be given, andmust be given, a. fair trial. [MR.GGony: By whomP] The whip ofthe Opposition (Mr. Gregory) need notbridle up in that way. We are not goingto make a party question of this, as he isso fond of doing of everything. Whocan try Parliament ? I have seen itadvocated by members of Parliament,and by the Press, that 'some outsidecommittee should be chosen to try thisHouse. Why, Parliament is the supremetribunal in this land, and if there be notfound inside the walls of this AssemblyMen who are able to try, this issue, thereare men in the 'Upper House who can doit. But we will give the hon. member(Mr. Robson) a "fair deali." We willhave no party committee, if I have anypower to prevent it. Every side of theHouse shall be represented on the com-nmittee, and it is only fair the hon.member sh~ould be here, for the reasonthat we cannot proceed to do anythinguntil we know the grounds of his charges:because it might happen that I, forinstance, or any other member, mightfind myself appointed on that committee,

62 Privilege: (ASSEMBLY.]

Prvieg:[23 MAY, 1900.] Aspersions on Assembly. 63

and might afterwards find that I was oneof the accused.

MR. TLLlNGWORTH: The whole Houseis accused.

MR. MORAN: Uf the hon. member(Mr. Rtobson) wants a " fair deal," hemust intimate that he intends to makecharges, and must give the names ofthose whom he accuses; and thosemembers accused must have nothing todo with the trial, except as witnesses.That is the position. [SE-vFRAL MEN-BEES: Hear, hear.] He will get afair British " deal," and we willall hope that he will come out asa man-that he has been misled. Icannot for one moment imagine that thehon. member could be guilty of sayingwhat he is represented to have said,unless he has been imposed on. L et ushave the truth right out. No one wantsto live under these imputations, and Iam sure the leader of the Opposition(Mr. Illingworeh) does not want to liveunder them. I do not know any manwho can afford to give away an honour-able name, which for some of us repre-sents all the capital we have to live on;at all events, we all started with that,and let us wind up with it if we possiblycan an md if we are to go out of Parlia-ment this session, let us go after havingyhad thesecha-rges inquired into. I speakbitterly upon this, because a paper mn myown constituency never issues a numberthat does not refer particularly to thesecharges as proven, and as charges thatthe Government are afraid to take up.The Kalgoorlie Miner repeats, in everyissue, that the Government dare not holdan inquiry into this question. That is apaper which represents a great party inthis country, the party which wantsseparation. We cannot afford to sit stillnuder these charges. Yet while we arejealous of our own honour, let us givethe gentleman who has miade these chargesdue notice. He shall be given a fair trial;and I believe the fairest method of doingthat will be to let him make his chargesin the open House, where the public canhear them, and let every man accusedstand up publicly "ud defend himself.These attacks have been made known inother parts of the world, and there is onlyone way to deal with them, that beingin open court. So we must have athoroughly unbiassed select committee in

this House, consisting of members whoare not implicated in any of the charges.Then we shall see whetier there are anymembers in this House who believe thesecharges are true. Sneerers say, at times,that we want to make a party question ofthis matter; but I assert such is not thecase. We want a " fair deal," and we willnot allow any man who is a member ofthe Assembly to make accusations of thiskind, unless we can bring him to bookand give him an opportunity to explain.We know what would happen if suchaccusations were made in the street,individually. I support the motionentirely in the interests of Mr. Robson,whom I have had the honour and plea-sure of calling " friend " in the past . Heis a gentleman who made a good impres-sion in the House in the early part of thesession, and who, strange to say, all thetime he was here voted for the Govern-ment which he has described as corrupt.I await Mr, Robson's explanation, andhope it will eventuate in the fair fame ofthis House being reinstated, and in Mr.Robson being able to resume h is seat oncemore among us, as one whom we cantrust and who will trust us also.

uN& EWING (Swan): There is nodoubt the charges by the member forGeraldton are serious; nor can there beany doub Lt that they mustL be investigated,and investigated coolly and deliberately,absolutely" in dependently of any partyor political feeling. I was unlfortunateenough to be absent from the Rouse whenthe motion was, moved, but I understandit to be that Mr. Robson shall be calledupon to substantiate or withdraw hisstatement.

MR. MORAN: To explain.MR. EWING: To explain the state-

ment. he is reported to have made.MR. ILLINGwORTHf: On Tuesday next.MR. EW-ING:- I think there are two

sets of parties interested in this matter.The first is anl individual, Mr. Robson,the second being composed of themembers of this House; and when acharge of this kind is made, it cannot bedealt with too early and too readily. Ifthese charges are trite, the public have aright to know who are the individualsreferred to, and to deal out to them thepolitical punishment they so richlydeserve. on the other hand, if there isno substance or truth in the remarks of

Privilege.

64 Privilege:[A EML. ApeiohnAsmby

Mr. Robson, the earlier an opportunity isgiven to that gentleman of showing tothe public that he has made statementswhich are without foundation, the betterfor the community and this Parliament.It cannot be a. pleasant thing for Mr.Robson to sit amongst a number of menagainst whom he has wade a charge, anyof whomn may be regarded as tainted withthe fraud that is charged aga&inst thisHouse. I think if he were here, he wouldsay, " Give me the earliest opportunty ofvindicating my position, or of withdrawingmy remarks." The community demandsan inquiry in the matter, and is entitledto it. I say this without uttering aword about the merits of the question.Whatever may be the faults of theForrest Government. I would be the lastto charge them with cormuption; and,altogether leaving out of considerationthe merits of the case, I feel justifiedin saying that if Mr. Robson weremn this House to-day, he would bethe readiest member to say, " Giveme that inquiry: let me either provethe charges I have made, or give methe opportunity of acting the part of aman by saying I ame wrong, and with-drawing the statement without qualifica-cation." It is right that 'Mr. Robsonshould be asked to explain the statementhe has made at the earliest. reasonableopportunity; and that is very reasonablymet by the motion that has been moved.I therefore support the motion on theunderstanding and assurance that, if Mr.Robson has not had sufficient time todeal with the matter so as to place itfully before the members of this House,and to do justice to his ease, if he has aease, further time shall be allowedl. TheHouse is in duty hound to extend to himevery possible means that lies in its power.When a charge is made against eitherthe whole house, the whole Ministry, orany individual member, the utmost pub-licity should be given in dealing with thematter at the earliest possible moment.Ay adopting this course the House willhe doing that which the country nbt onlydesires but has a right to demanid.

MR. LEAKE (Albany):; For somereasons given by the member for theSwan (Mr. Ewing), I suppcrt the amend-ment. The hon. member suggests that ifthis matter had been brought to theattention of the member for Geraldton,

that bion. member might possibly hav4withdrawn the expressions, and no mon(would have been said. If notice of thiEmotion had been given, an opportunit3would have been afforded the iuembeifor Geraldtou to offer some reason oianother; but the motion is sprung orthe House without notice.

THE PREMIER: On the very firsiopportunity.

MR. LEAXE:. No; the first oppor,tunity was a day or two ago, when thiHouse met.

THE SPEAKER:' It is not necessary txgive notice on a question of privilege.

MR. tEARE:- I know it is not; butas a matter of fact, notice might hav(been given on the Notice Paper, and w(are all unprepared to discuss the questionwhich, at any rate, might occasion a gooddeal of heat. I have no doubt the memheaifor North Murchison does not desire tcdiscuss the question, because, no doubthe has had an opportunity of discussingit with the Government. We cannot shulour eyes to the fact that this is a6 Govern,went matter more than a Parliainentar3one.

SEVERAL MEMBRES: Why?MR. TEARE: Certain charges arc

alleged to have been levelled against tb(Government in an after-dinner speech.

THE PREMIER:- No. This was atEpublic meeting. We refer to the publicmeeting at which the member for Geraldton addressed his constituents.

MR. [[BAKE:- That shows the neces.sity for th is House having an opportunit3of looking calmly and dispassionately aI

these papers, because if the Goverpneniwere so annious in this matter, we wonthave expected them to put up th(Attorney-General to move the motionrather than a private member in thnperson of the member for North Mur.chison. But they have thought fit t(adopt the course which has been takenand undoubtedly they are strictly withiitheir rights and privileges.

A MEMxBER: - Have they done what yotassert ?

Mit. [[BAKE: Undoubtedly; becausnI happened to notice on the papers laidbefore the House a memorandum in tichandwriting of the Premier.

THE PREMIER: The papers were sen:to the Speaker with that note on the to!of them.

[ASSEMBLY.] Asper8iom on Assembly.

Prieg:[23 MAY, L900.J Aspersions on Assembly. 65

Ma. IJEAKE :That clearly stows,does it not, that these papers passedthrough the hands of the Premier ?

Tanz Fanuna: If they did, what doesit matter ?

MR. IjEAKE: Nothing. I am tryingto throw oil on the troubled waters, andI ask hon. members to pause 'bfore theyenter into a discussion of this kindwithout due consideration.

MR. EwING: The discussion will takeplace when Mr. Robson comes.

MR. LEAKE: But I understood thehon. member to say perhaps we mightavoid this discussion by a possible with-drawa~l by the member for Geraldton inthe House. If notice had been given ofthis motion., that opportunity would havebeen afforded the member for Geraldton.

MR. A. Fonaxar: He can have it still.MR. LEAKE: Ain I to understand

lion. members in this House will not besatisfied with the withdrawal of thestatement, but will insist on the prosecu-tion of the inquiry? Is that so?

TunK PRAxirmnt: It is merely an assumnp-tion of yours. No one said it.

Ma. EWING: There should be no with-drawal. Either there should be a state-ment that the assertions are not true, orthe member for Geraldton should proceedwith them.

MR. LEAKE: That is quite right. Isuppose what the bon. member said justnow was not quite what he meant. How-ever, that is by the way. What Icomplain of is that the motion, that themember for Genildton should be orderedto attend in his place and explain, hasbeen made without any notice at all. Ido not think this House should make anyorder, particularly an order of this kind,without having had time to consider it.The motion was very nearly carried onthe voices a moment ago, without a wordof explanation. The member for CentralMurchison (Mr. fllingworth) points outthat the member for Geraldton wouldbe guilty of contempt if he did notattend. We want to give the member. forGeraldton ample opportunity. I am notdesirous in any degree to burk inquiry inthis matter. There is no doubt themember who made the alleged statementsis himself prepared to submit himselfto all1 proper authority, and to offernecessary explanation.

MRIn. Urex: Are you sure?

MR. LEAKE: That interjection showsthere is an element of bitterness on theGovernment side of the House, which Inot only deprecate but regret; and Ihope the member for Fremantle (Mr.Higham) will avoid anything of that krind.

THE PREMIER: I suppose it is nothingto be charged with dishionourable conduct!

MR, LE AKE: What has occurred onlyshows the necessity of noting with a cer-tain amount of caution and consideration.I do not like members on the Govern-ment side of the Rouse to prejudge thismatter, but I wish the House to giveeverybody an opportunity of offering a.full explanation; and if an explanation isnot forthcoming, let the person be dealtwith according to his deserts. Noauthority has been quoted for the coursetaken. This is the first timne suet a thinghas happened in this Parliament, and I1think since Parliamentary Governmenthas been known in Western A-ustralia.This is an unusual motion without notice,and one would have expected it to besupported with some authority. I haveno doubt that authority is handy, eitherin the Parlicamentary Practice or in theStanding Orders ; hut at any rate weWere entitled to know something about it.I say again I am supporting the amend-ment proposed by the leader of theOpposition, and there is force in what hesays. I trust that even if the amendmentbe not carried, the debate on this questionwill be adjourned until to-morrow or thenext day, because this has come upon usas a sudden shock. Doubtless there hasbeen a rumour outside and in the Press.I notice that the Government Press hasbeen agitating in this matter for aconsiderable time, and urging that thesubject be inquired into. Still, that is nomeason why we should not approach thismatter with a certain degree of calm-ness. No doubt we desire to maintainthe honour and integrity of the House,but I cannot help saying that in thecourse of time in this Chamber manyexpressions have flown from both sidesof the House which, if you analysethem and take their grammatical mean-ing, or historical meaning for the matterof that, impute very improper conduct,and you will find that even from theGovernment benches very severe remarkshave been maode. I myself have beencalled a "1 traitor " before now, and it is not

Privilege.

66 Piviege [ASEMBY.] Aspersions on, Assembly.

so many years ago -and I believe it isstill the law-that a traitor sufferedcapital punishment; but nobody everthought that those words were used inwhat we might call a personal sense,because there was a certain political senti-meut. So I dare say when we come toinquire into the merits of this particularcase we shall find there was a politicalelement existing. There is not sufficientbefore the House to justify the motionbeing forced through - I say forcedthrough-this evening, without due con-sideration and deliberation. I thereforesupport the amendment moved by themember for Central Murchison (Mr.flkngworth); not with the idea of burk-hag discussion, but with the intentionthat the matter may be more calmly anddispassionately considered. Nobody candeny there was a certain amount of heatintroduced by the right hon. gentleman(the Premier); and although I was notastonished at it, yet that exhibition offeeling should be alone sufficient toinduce us not to hurry this matter. Weare supposed to act in some way in ajudicial capacity, in dealing with thisquestion; and we ought not to approachthe consideration of so important a matterwhen ouir minds are either heated orbiassed. I implore hon. members to con-sider the amendmnent of the leader of theOpposition, asnd, at any rate, to consentto an adjournment of this debate toanother day.

MR. VOSPEE (North-East fool-gardie):- For my part, ITam one of the lastmembers who would desire to burk inquiryinto charges of so grave and serious acharacter. I am entirely at one with thePremier in his desire to have thatinquiry as early as possible. Nevertheless,I cannot avoid taking consideration ofarguments introduced on this side ofthe House, and particularly one powerfulargument just used by the memberfor Albany (Mr. Leake). Any ques-tion involving the privilege of Par-liament is in its nature very serious, andshould be approached with all due cautionand deliberation. I know that if asimilar episode had occurred ini theImperial Parliament, every opportunitywould have been given for ventilatingevery side of the question; and not onlywould notice have to be given, but alengthy notice to the member most con-

cerned, in order that, if he desired to doso, he could work up a case against theGovernment. If the member for Gerald-ton (Mr. Robson) were able to muster amajority in this House, he could proceedby means of impeachment, and that formof procedure would involve considerabledelay.

THE PREMIER: This is not a matter ofimpeachbment, but of persona honour.

MR. VOSPER: I am not speaking ofimpeachment on any question of policy.Ministers in the House of Commons havebeen impeached on charges of persona]corruption, and that is the charge, sub.stantially, made by the member fotGeraldton against the Government ofthis colony.

MR. HIOHFAM:, Against Parliamentgenerally; not against the Government.

MR. VOSPER: I read the charges asbeing levelled, for the most part, againstthe Government of the day and againsttheir supporters. The charges are notlevelled against this (Opposition) side ofthe House.

THE PREMIER: We want inquiry, then,and you won't give it us.

MR. VOSPER: In any Parliament inthe world, matters of this sont would beapproached with considerable delibera-tion and caution, and particularly whereserious charges are made. I think everyopportunity should be given to the accusexto formulate his charges in a propeimanner. As it is now, a very briefnotice has been given under the terms ofthe motion, and the House is asked tcpass the motion at a inoment's noticeMembers on this side were totally unawarethat this matter was comning on.

SEVERAL MEMBERS: Nonsense! Youknew it was.

Mn. VOSPER: For myself, it is notmore than half an hour ago that I sug-gested to the leader of the Opposition thedesirability of having this matter broughtbefore the House, for discussion.

*THE PREMIER: You wanted to urgEus on, did youP

MR. VOSPERt: I suggested to myleader on this side the desirableness ofhaving this matter discussed, not neces-sarily now, but at some time.

Mn. M~OORHEAD): The hon. meinbeiwho made the charges 'knew the groundsof his charges on the 20th February whoahe made them, if he had any grotunds

66 Privilege: [ASSEMBLY.]

Priilge[23 Ma,1900.] Aspersions on Assembly. 67

Mn. YOSPIER: It is one thing to besure of your facts, and quite anotherthing to be able to obtain the evidencenecessary to support them. The hon.member (Mr. Moorhead), as a lawyer,must he aware that it is a practice in lawto apply for repeated adjournments inorder to obtain evidence. In this ease,the accuser will not be allowed sufficienttime, under this motion. This matterhas been. sprung on the House, and it isnot the kind of business that should besprung on members; but this is a ques-tion that should be approached with everycaution, and the fullest opportunity shouldbe given to every member to examine thecharges contained in the particular news-paper. We are asked to suddenlydecide on a matter of the gravest moment,a matter that has no parallel in this Par-liament, and very few parallels, in therecords of the British Empire. I wa'ssomewhat amused at the sudden spasmof virtuous indignation which has coinsover the Premier to-night. No doubtthe right hon, gentleman was thoroughlysincere in the indignant manner in whichlhe repelled those charges. Nevertheless,I cannot but be aware thiat for yearspast, for Tour or five years at least,allegations equivalent to these chargeshave been made by newspapers in variou sparts of the colony.

THRn PREmiEn: Not in regard toParliament.

MR. VOSPER: The public Press isquite as important anl institution asParliament itself; and I recollect, inparticular, that one journal, the .Kal-goorlie -lfiner, has made charges of thischaracter.

THE PREmiE& . Never of personaldishonour, that I have seen.

AIR. VOSPER: Oh, yes.Tan PREMliR: If it were so, I would

make them prove it.Mn. VOSPER: That journal said the

Premier was the most politically crooked'nan in all Australia,

THE Fa~uR na What is there in thati'We are all crooked, politically, in theopinion of some lpeople.

MR. VOS PER: The distinction madeby the right hon. gentleman is certainlya subtle one, and would do credit to agreater casuist even than himself. Iremember, also, that a charge of deliber-

ate fraud was published in the Kalgoorlienewspaper, only a week or so ago, againsta company in which a member of thisHouse is known to be interested, and itcharged that company with conspiring toswindle the Railway Department. Itimnpugned the personal honour of mem-bers of the company -that personalhonour of which we hear so much thisafternoon.

MR. A. FORESr: That matter couldbe easily explained.

MR. VOSPER: I say again that forthe last five or six years charges of thiskind have been made frequently in thePress of the colony, and no action hasbeen taken by the Government to meetthe charges, except in one solitary unini-portant case, wherein a member of thisHouse was said to hlave assaulted anothermember at the back of this Chamber.Among all the charges of this kind thathave been mahde in the Press during thelast few years, -we have seen only onecharge investigated by the action of theGovernment in placing the c~ise beforethe Supreme Court; and that case was ofso trivial a character that it was laughedlout of court. Look at the position inwhich the Opposition in this House areplaced over the action of the Governi-inent. The Premier has arranged withthe leader of the Opposition that practi-cally no business is to be dealt withduring the present session, except onlythe Federation Enabling Bill. In con-nection with the motion I brought beforethe H1ouse yesterday, the leader of theOpposition was written to, and when hemuet tue in this Chamber afterwards herequested me to drop that motion for thesveeia.purpose of giving facility for the

disussonof the federation question.This arrangement ineans that Oppositionmembers aire to keep back all theirbusiness, to keep back everything exceptthisi one question of the Federation Bill,no matter how important may be thebusiness of members on this side of tmeHouse. Matters quite as important evenas their " personal honour " may have tobe brought forward by members on thisor the other side of the House, and yet weare asked to keep all this back, whilethe Government, or a6 member on theirside, bring forward the niost disturbingquestion they can think of.- This is doneat a time when we find members on both

Privilege:

68 Prvilee: [SSEMLY.] Aeperaions on Assemnbly.

sides of the House agreed on the subjectwhich we have been called togetherparticularly to deal with; yet, while thisis the state of feeling, the Governmentintroduce this most disturbing question.When members on this (Opposition) sideof the House are willing to drop theirbusiness, in order that the House as awhole may agree in passing the Federa-tion Enabling Bill, this is the very timethat the Government, instead of the usual" red herring," throw a, whole. whale onthe floor of the House. To bring amotion of this kind forward at such a4time is not treating the House fairly,nor is it treating the Opposition fairly,nor treating the member for Geraldtonfairly; nor is it treating themselvesfairly.

THE PREMIER: We want the memberfor Geraldton to prove his words-hischarges of personal dishonour. That isall we want. him to do.

Mn. VOSPER: You should not rushthrough a matter of this kind.

Tnn PREMInEn: He can have as muchtime as he likes.

Mn. VOSPE FL Let us have thatamount of delay -which the rules ofdiscussion provide for.

THE PREMIER:- You do not wantinquiry.

Mn. VOSPER: -I repel with scorn theimputation of the right hon. gentlewan.He is committing a gross breach ofcourtesy in making that assertion.

THE PREMIER: I say they do not wantinvestigation. We want it, and will haveit, too.

MR. VOSPER! Very well, the rightlion, gentleman can have it, but at thesame time he will not prevent me fromopening my mouth in protest. I amhere to protest against the procedurethat has been adopted, not against theinvestigation itself; and I will neitherbe misrepresented nor abused by theright lion. gentleman. I have protestedagainst the form in which the Govern-ment wish to force on this investigation;and the best proof of their desire toburk a real investigation is their attemptto force on one which from its very pre-cipitancy must be a sham.

MR. GREGORY (North Coolgardie):I move the adjournment of the debatetil Tuesday next.

SEVERAL MEMBERS: No, no.Mn. MORAN: We are "running th

show," just now.Mn. GREGORY: This matter ha

been sprung upon us.THE PREMIER: Oh! sprung on you

You knew very well of its coming forward. You want to keep the quaestiobefore the country-to keep it ]langinlabout.

Mn. MORAN: To makce an electio:cry of it.

THE PREMIER:- As you have donalready on the goldfields.

Mn. GREGORY: I do not knoiwhether the Premier or I am addressinithe Rouse.

MR. MORAN: I ask you, Mr. Speakeican a motion for adjournment of thdebate be discussed or spoken toThe hion. member moved the adjourninent.

Mn. SPEAKER: He must movewithout speaking to it.

Motion for adjournment put, anddivision being called for b y Mr. Gregoryit wvas taken with the following result-

AyesNoes 23

Majority against ... ... 12AYES. NOS.

Mr. George Mr. DohertyMr. HveLl Ur. EwingMr. Holmes Sir-John ForrestMr. Lllihgworth Mr. A. ForrestMr. KingsmiLl Mr. D. ForrestMr. Lenke Ur, Hall]Mr. Oats Mr. HareMr. Solomon Mr. emtMr. Vosper 57ir. BubbleMr. Wilson Mv- LotroyMr. Gregory (Tdla). Mr. Locke

Mr. MitchellMr. MlongerMr. MoranMy. MoorhieadMr, Pennefather11r. PhillipsMr. PleaseMr. QuinlanMr. 811ellMr. Thromel]Mr. WoodMr. Rason (Telr).

Motio tu ne tivea, and the debatAcontinued.

MR. MORAN (East Coolgardie) : I &inot think this is a matter about whielwe should waste more words. We caisee the trend of events. I beg to mov(that the question be now put.

MR. VosrEn. Oh, the gag!Mn. A. FORREST: I second that.

68 Privilege. [ASSEMBLY.]

[23 MtrY, 1900.] Aspersions on Assembly. 69

Motion put, and a division being calledfor by Mr. Gregory, it was taken with thefollowing result:

Ayes ... ... .. 16Noes ... ... .. 18

Majority againstAYES.

6ir John ForrestMr. A. F'orrestMr. D). ForrestMr. BubbleMr. LefroyMr. U.1k,Mr. MitchellMr. MonigerMr. MoranMr. PennelaitherMr. PhillipsMr. PimaMr, sholltar' ThrosselMr. WoodUr. Rsawn (Teller').

2NOES.

Mr. DohertyMr. Ewing

Mr. EM]0jr9Mr. HarerMr. H cIMY. NiHtiMr. HolmesAir. IfingwortbMr. Kingsumil]Mr. LeakeMr. MoorheadMr. OatsMr. QiinuMr. SolomonMr. VospeorMrt WilsonMr. aregory, (Teller).

Motion thus negatived, and the debatecontinued,

Twx ATTORNEY GENERAL (Hon.R. W. Pennefather):- After the discus-sion that has taken place on this question,in wvhich, unfortunately, much warmthof expression has been made use of,though I think pardonably, the timne hasnow arrived when any further discussionof this miatter ought to be deprecated,having regard to the interests of the hon.inember who is absent. With that objectin view, I think the proper course is topass the motion. If the hon. member isunable to be present in the House on theday fixed, he can advise the leader of theOpposition or some other member to thateffect, and I feel certain that no hon.member will in any way hamper themember for Geraldton by giving, himunduly short notice, or by compellinghim to prove his charges unless he isfully prepared to do so. Any ample andreasonable time that the hon. membermay require will, I am sure, be concededby this House.

Mn. ILLINrcwORTKE: This is an ordeirof the House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:Exactly; and being an order of theHouse, it can be revoked or modified bya further order; but the question now is,can any real good be done by continuingthis discussion in present circumstances?We are all agreed that it is unfair todiscuss the merits of this case either oneway or other, and any further discussionmay possibly tend to do that which wve do

not wish done; and I therefore think weshould decide this question of notice, forthe only point we are debating is whetheror not the hon. member (Mr. Robson)shall attend in his place next Tuesday, orwhether the interval shall be prolongedtill the next ordinary session. Memberson this side, and I believe eveu on the.other side of the House, are agreed onthe fact that undue delay would be wrongfor various reasons; but that any reason-able time should be ranted to the hon.member is, I am sure, the wish of everyniember of the Rouse.

Mn. HALL (Perth): No one hasattempted to discuss the merits of thecase, and I am sure the mover of thenotion had no thought in his mind thatthe merits should be discussed this even-ing. There was no course open to theGovernment but to bring this matterforwar-d at the very earliest opportunitv,and that they have done. With regardto Mr. Robson not having received notice,I think this is a, notice. It is a notice toget ready to prove his charges on Tuesdaynext, and I feel sure that if he tells theHouse that he is not quite ready, themembers of the House will be quite readyto allow him further time. B3ut it is nowsome time since he made these charges.They have been ventilated in the Press,and Mr. Robson ]knew perfectly well fromthe Press and a. number of members thathe would be called upon to prove thesecharges in the Rouse. Therefore. if thehon. memaber is not ready, he mostcertainly ought to be. I can only say ifMr. Robson is not able to prove thecharges he hits levelled against themembers of the House, he ought atonce to withdraw, and T think he willdo so.

MR. WILSON (Canning): I simplyrise to take exception to a very strongassertion by the Premier, that memberson the Opposition side of the Housedesire to burk this inquiry. I think thatis a statement for which there is nowarranty.

THE PnsmutnS: What are you doing,then ?

MRt. WILSON:- I maintain that mem-bers on this side of the House are entitledto be considered honourable, juast as muchas members on the Ministerial side.

Tarn PREuMIER: We are more implicatedthan you are.

Privilege.!

70 Privilege: [ASSEMIBLY.] Aspersi'ons on Assembly.

MR. WILSON: I think that is all themore reason why time should be allowedto allay the warmth of feeling the righthion. gentleman has now exhibited.

THE PREMIER: It is nothing to betold you a-re dishonourable, I suppose?

Mu. WILJSON: I should be sorryindeed to have this case inquired into bythe right hon, gentleman, in his presentframe of mind.

THE PREM1IER: I am not going toinquire into it.

Mn. WILSON: I should be sorry tosubmit myself to an examination, iu acase of this sort or any other, when theright hon. gentleman was so heated. Toassert that the members of the Oppositionwish to burk inquiry, and to occasiondelay in order that the matter should notbe inquired into, is unfair.

THE PREMIE-R: You ought to assistus, then.

Mu. WILSON:- We do assist you. Isay that if delay in this matter will tosome extent allay the feeling of the righthon. gentleman, that delay will bewarranted.

THE PREMIER: It is a month sincethe member for Geraldton made thesestatements.

MRt. WILSON: I do not care whetherit is a, monthi ago or not. This is the firsttime the subject has been brought beforethe house, the first time we heard thataction was to be taken upon it: we heardrumours, but nothing of this motion. Ik-new nothing about it before; neitherdid the nmembers on this (Opposition)side of the House. We object to themotion, and are justified in objectingto it. Why should we not have ouropinions on this question ? T~f we thinkthe interests of the country will be bestserved by deferring this matter to thebeginning of next session, why should wenot speak in support of such postpone-ment?

THE PREMIER: We are to rest underthese charges all this time, are wed

MR. WILSON: You have rested underthe charges for the last three or fourmonths apparently, and it will not hurt.you to rest under them for the next twoor three weeks.

TnE PREMIER: We will not do it, atany rate.

Mu. WILSON: If you have a justcase, which I suppose you have---

THE PREMIER:- You do not know an.)thing about it.

MR. WILSON: It will do no hanwhatever to allow the member for Geralcton until the beginning of next sessiozLet us get through with the question cfederation, and then at the beginningthe next session you can inquire into thi:matter as f ully as you like.

THE PRExMIR: We shall have finishefederation by Tuesday next.

MR. WILSON: I have not said wbstribunal I would propose. There atoutside tribunals that could inquire intthis matter, but the subject is one fcsubsequent inquiry. The questionwhether the member for Geraldton shabe ordered to be in his place on Tuesdanext to answer a charge.

Mit. MouRA: Not at all.Ma. WILSON: That is as I undo,

stand the motion.THE PRtEME: That is the motion.MR. WILSON: It is an order of tl

House that the lion, member for 0-emitton shall be in his place on Tuesday ne).to explain the remarks lie is allegedIhave made about the Government. Ttmember for Geraldton is not here tnight to hear the motion. He is awa,He is at Geraldton, and possibly caninbe here on Tuesday; but, according Ithe motion, he must be in his place othat day, if the motion be passed. Iwill be contempt of the House if henot in his place..

MR. MORA&N: Not if he gives a reasoiable excuse. If he cannot come, h1cannIot.

MR. WILSON: I am sorry to saycannot agree with the hon. member.assert that if the motion be carried, tlhon. memiber for Geraldton must behis place on Tuesday next, otherwise Iwill be guilty of contempt of the Roustthere is; no doubt about that. I hope tdPremier wvill not give a, public exhibitioof his temper. I think it is about timrnow he controlled his temper.

THE PREMIER: I am not aeCUStometo this sort of thing.

MR. WILSON:- It is only the meiubeiof the Opposition who are accustomedtbe abused. I do not wish to detract froithe seriousness of the matter which is. (will be, under consideration. DoubtleEit is one of the most serious matters tlHouse can be called upon to discuss

Prii~ei:[23 M,&r, 1900.] Aspersionus on Assembly. 7

consider, and I hope the House will givereasonable time and opportunity to themember for Geraldton, so that he mayprepare either his defence, whatever itmay be, or his explanation.

Tax PREMI.ER: We will give him time,as far as I am concerned.

MRa. WILSON: I do not think thatbringing forward a motion like this at amoment's notice, that the hon. membershall be in his place on Tuesday next, isgiving reasonable time. I know nothingabout the merits of the case. I have onlyseen the charges which have been readout here, and I am not prepared to saywhether the hon. member has any evidenceor niot, or whether he can meet theallegation.

Tn PREMIER: Nor I either.MR. WILSON:, Then why have so

much temper about it?Tan PREMIER: No temper at all. If

you had been placarded all over thiscolony and all over the British dominions,perhaps you would have experienced alittle feeling too.

Mn. WILSON: The whole thing isnewspaper report.

THE PREMIER: By a member of Par-liament.

Mnt. WILSON: There is -no reason forthe right hon. gentleman to get into sucha temper and forget himself, and make asenious charge against the members ofthe Opposition that they wish to burkinquiry on this important matter. I de-precate such a statement, and I think thebest thing the Rouse can do is to grantextfa time and pass the amendmnent of theleader of the Opposition.

Mn. DOHERTfY (North Fremantle):Members are a0l aware, I believe, thatMr. Robson is reported to have said, a,few days ago, that he ha-d all these littlethings in his pigeon-holes. If so, I sup-pose hie is prepared to bring them beforethe House, to substantiate the chargesmade.

Tas PREmiER: I expect the memberfor Central Murchison heard the memberfor Geraldton.

Mn. DOHffERTY: There is a feelingon this side of the House that memberson the Opposition side arranged that themember for Geraldton should not be inhis place to-day. The tone of the re-marks made indicates that such was thecase.

MR. EwurNo That sort of statementdoes no good.

Mnt. LEASE: That is another instanceof fairness.

Ma. GREGORY (North Coolgardie):As far as the Opposition are concerned,I desire to say I had not the slightestknowledge that this matter was comingon to-night. That is the reason we areopposing the motion. We are opposingit because it has been sprung on us.

THE PREMIER: You have informationabout the member for Geraldton speakingof corrupt government. You used it allthrough your district.

MR. Gnxaonv: I have said thingsnearly as bad.

MR. VosFEB (North-East Coolgardie):I desire to know whether accusations thatmembers on this (Opposition) side of theHouse are deliberately planning to keepa member away, for purposes of their ownm,are in order ?

THzE SPEAKER:; No. I do not thinkthey are in order. I think the observa-tion is one that should not be made.

MR. DOHERTY:- I said the idea.exisited on this side of the Rouse. I didnot make any direct accusation againsthon. members. I 'hope I shall never dothat in this House. I can only say anymembers 'who will be prepared to wait formonths to vindicate their honour will bedoing an injustice to themselves and tothe people they represent.

Mn. ILLINOWOETH:; The inquiry nowwill save two weeks. That is all.

Mn. DOHERTY: The member forEast Coolgardie (Mr. Moran) says it ispossible the Government may not live atfortnight. It is quite possible.

MR, WILsoN: You have something upyour slee-ve, then.

Mn. DOHERTY: We do not keepanything up our sleeves. I repeat thatthe Government may not be in power foranother fortnight, and may not have anopportunity of vindicating themselves, andwhy should the leader of the Oppositionand his followers be permitted to go tothe country with the question in anundecided state F They would not saytheir honour was touched. No ; theywould say that it was the honour of theGovernment, and of the followers of theGovernment, that was attacked. Thatwould be spoken to the detriment of theGovernment and to the glory of the

Privilege-: 71

72 Privilege:[ASM Y] AsesosnAsmb.

Opposition. IFf the member for Gerald-ton is right, every member on this side ofthe House must resign his seat in Parlia-ment1 no other course being open to him.In such case we must go to the count-i,and the sooner we do it the better.

Mn,. 5010 NEO (South Fremautle):As a member sitting on the Oppositionside, I may say I knew nothing whateverabout this motion until the discussionwas opened. At the same time, I thinkthe charges madea against memibers in thisHouse are of such a serious nature thatthe sooner they are substantiated orit is proved the allegations are wrong,the better. It appears to me that thehon. member who is absent is merelyasked to appear here on a certain day, toexplain these allegations made at a publicmeeting and reported in the public Press.I repeat that the sooner he does appearand deal with them, the better. Fromwhat I know of him, I think that if youask, him, Mr. Robson himself will be onlytoo pleased to state here publicly andbefore hon. membhers his opinion of thecharges; whether he thinks what he hassaid bears the light of truth or otherwise.For myself I shall vote for the propositionto give 'him an opportunity to make hischarges at as early a date as possible.

At 6-30, the Srz,&nlrz left thle Chair.

At 7'30, Chair resumed.

Mu.. MOORHEAD) (in repily as mover);I do not propose to deal at length withthe arguments adduced either in support,of the amendment or the motion. Asthere, appears to be a strange misconcep-tion with regard to the object of raymotion, I propose to state in a few wordsmy intention in moving it. Briefly,then, it appears that some time about themiddle of February last, a. member ofthis House, addressing his constituents,is reported to have made certain charges,primarily against the Government, butindirectly affecting the honour of thisHouse. I have carefully guarded myselfagainst any expression of opinion as tothe truth of these charges, or as towhether they were ever made; but takinthem as reported, they amount to this,that the member for Qeraldton said theGovernment were corrupt and rotten,that they were kept in office by a group

of financiers who also paid certain members, and that the Government bat

atmted to bribe him in connectiorwit the Sluicing and Dredgig BillTherefore, without going at any lengtlinto these alleged charges. which are puiinto the mouth of the member foiGeraldton through a newspaper reportand without considering their trutior untruthfulness, we find that thes(charges were publicly reported, and havibeen spread throughout the countr)as emanating from a member of thiHfouse.

THE PREMIER: Spread throughout thfworld.

MR. MOORHE AD: Yes, throughoniIthe world, and subsequently been mad(

use of by members of the Oppositiorside, in allegig that the Government cithis country were shown to he corrupiand rotten to the core-howP By reasor:of their attempts to bribe members olthis House. Now, I submit that nolalone are the Government of this countr3directly implicated by charges of thiidescription, but these chiarges reflect or:everyv member of the House who supportithe Government; therefore, when thtleader of the Opposition (Mr. Ill1ingworth'says notice should have been given of tlitintention to bring forward this matteranid that it is a breach of faith to hrinit forward in a, special session convener,for the purpose of dealing with thnFederation Bill, and when he says thaihie and the Premier have practicall13arranged that no othier business shouldbe brought forward in this special sessionmy reply is that I do not care a snap oithe, fingers for any arrangement whict

Imay have been made between the leadeiof the Government and the leader of theOpposition for- limiting the subjects wittwhich members of this House may deal.in the present session. I ama here k<defend my honour, when T consider thEhonour of this House is impeached.when the honour of the Goverumeniwhom I support is impeached by acharge of corruption. I may tell theHouse that when I proposed this motionI was under the impression that it wouldbe accepted by the Opposition, as well atby members on the Government side,because members of the Opposition arEimplicated in this general charge, thoughperhaps not nearly so much as are

Aspergions on A8sembZy.[ASSEUBLY.)

Pri~rlse:(23 MAr, 1900.] Aspersion# an Assembly. 73

supporters of the Government; and Ithou ght that members of the Oppositionwould desire to vindicate the honour ofthe House, and that they would scarcely*consent to sit in the I-ouse for 24 hours,to be brought into contact with memberson. this side -who are supposed to bestpecially open to be bribed by theGovernment, Therefore, in regard to thecomplaint that a breach of faith has beencommitted in my bringing this motionforward without notice, I submit thatthere -was no intention of committing anybreach of faith or tal~ing anyone bysurprise. The other argument used bythe leader of the Opposition is that themember for Geraidton has had no notice,and will not bare time to prepare hisdefence. The memaber for Geraldton isnot called upon for his defence now.The object of the motion is merely thathe shall be ordered to attend in his placein the House on Tuesday next, andexplain these allegations. I take it thatthis House will not constitute itself intoa comm ittee of inquiry; but that if theexplanation of the member for Geraldton,when made here, is found to be unsatis-factory, if he refuses to withdraw thecharges which he is reported in anewspaper to hare mnade against theGovernment, and against members in thisHouse, then it will be open to the RHouseto take one of two courses--either toappoint a Royal Commission or appointa select committee of this House, toinquire into these charges. So far as theinember for Geraldton is concerned, wedo not inquire forth with into the charges.The objects of the ifiotion axe thathe shiall be here to explain from hisplace in the House the charges be hasmade, and to give hima an opportunity tomake out what may be called a primafacie case in support of the charges he hasmade against the Government, or a. with-dr-awal of the charges and an explanationas to how they were made, or how theycaine to appear in a newspapier as havingbeen made by him. As to this Housebeing turned into a committee of inquiryand getting evidence in regard to thesecharges, I do not think that course wouldbe considered for a moment; and there-fore, so far as the mnember for Geraldtonis concerned, all he has to do is to attendhere by obeying the order of the House,and to make out, if he can, a prima facie

Pcase, or to totally withdraw the chargeslie has made. If lie is not able to attendhere on the 29th instant, a, letter addressedto the Speaker to that effect would nodoubt bring forth a resolution in thisHouse for extending the time for the bon.member's attendance; but 1, for one,.object to the present session being allowedto pass over without some inquiry orsomie special action. being taken for dealingwith these charges. This is the morenecessary when we know that some hon.members on the Opposition , side haveactually taken up these charges, and haveboldly thrown them at us, saying " Hereis the Government that is ruling thecountry, and this is the way they do it!"I say if there are members of this Housewho are capable of receiving bribes, andif the Government are such as to offerbribes to secure their support, then thesooner we get rid of this Government thebetter, and the sooner we get a dissolu-tion of the House the better. Therefore,in moving this motion I amn very far fromnendeavouriug to take the member forO-eraldton by surprise. It has beenpointed out by some memibers of theOpposition that the member for Gerald-

Iton should himself be one of the first toassist in having these charges inquiredinto. It is ridiculous to say that thismotion would not give time for themeniber for Oeraldton to prepare hisdefence: for I say it is not intendedto make inquiry' forthwith. But I saythat any member who would uttersuch charges as thos0e reported tohave been made on the 20th February-Ought to be sufficiently prepared tosubstantiate theta on the 29th May.Therefore I must oppose, and anm preparedto vote against, the amendment, and tosupport the motion which stands in myname. I may add that a telegram hasbeen banded to me a moment ago, comingfrom the member for Geraldton (Mr.Robson). It is addressed to Sir JohnForrest, and reads as fellows -

I understand htoorhead moving to-nightconcerning myself and Government. Can bein my place by 11 toi-morrow night, if neces-sary, bitt would prefer Tuesday, when I will

*meet you Ll; and am writing Mr. fl1ingworthto that effect.

Therefore we have an intimation, such aswe all antiipated,~ that the member forGeraldton will be one of the first to

Privilege:

74 Federation Bill: [ASML.Seodraig

accept the earliest opportunity of offeringhis explanation to the House.

Amendment (Mr. Illingworth's) putand negatived.

Question put, and passed on the voices.

FEDERATION ENABLING BILL.

SECOND REAMING (Mavp-n).

THE PREMIER (Right Hon. Sir J.Forrest): -£ have much pleasure in risingto propose the second reading of this Bill,which is intituled " An Act to makeprovision for the acceptance and enact-ment of a Federal C6nstitutiou for Aus-tralasia." In this colony, federation hasbeen a much controverted question, whichhas caused a. good deal of political troubleand much difference of opinion; but Iam glad to be able to state that wehave now conic to an understanding-ageneral understanding-withi the peopleof the colony, and that, whatever differ-ences of opinion may exist as to whetheror not we ought to have federation withthe other colonies, there seems to be ageneral opinion, and I think it is theopinion of a very large majority of thepeople of the colony, that the questionis one which should be settled by thevotes of the electors. I am glad to saythat up to the present time this veryimportant question. so important reallythat almost all others sink into insig-nificance in comparison with it, hasa notin this colony been made a. party ques-tion. Of course there may be somedifference of opinion in regard to thatstatement, because we cannot but knowthat the Opposition in this House are allof themn in favour of federation, or at anyrate have always been in favour of theFederal Bill being referred to the people-[Mr. LEAxxz: Hear, hear] -anid I do notsuppose that could come about merelyby chance; and therefore although bothsides--both myself and the leader ofthe Opposition-have on several occa-sions said that this was not a party ques-tion, still, for one reason or other, a greatmany questions which are not partyquestions drift into something like partyquestions. I think, however, that thisOommonwe~lth Bill, which appears asa schedule in the Bill now before us,represents the views of a good manypeople in this colony. Of course, I donot mean for a momnent to say there is

not a very large number opposed to som(of its provisions, but if we leave out zfew of those provisions, the general pro.visions of the Bill meet 'with very con-siderable support. I think I have alwaysmaintained thlat the general character olthe Commonwealth Bill is such that itmeets with a considerable amount olsupport from all sections of the coin-munfity, and that it is only in regard kca few clauses that all1 thep difference ofopinion has arisen. I should like to sayonce for all that, whatever may be saidin regard to members of this House who,up to the present time, have opposed thisC ommonwealth Bill being sent to thepeople, the worst that can be said aboutthem is that they are not satisfied thatthe Bill sufficiently conserves the interestsof this country; and that being so, I donot think they need ever feel any regretat the action they have taken. It is veryeasy to go with the stream, it is very easyto join the crowd, but it requires a gooddeal of pluck, a good deal of sell-control,and also a good deal of stamina, forpeople to stand up against the streamand to express opinions which are notaltogether pleasing, and which may appearin the lrger centres of the colony not inaccord with popular sentiment. For anyaction I have ever taken--and I supposeI have been abused more than anyoneelse throughout this colony, and through-out Australia-I have only to say I amvery proud of what f have done; and inafter years, when perhaps we are allfederated, and when we have almostforgotten the difficulties we have had todeal with in this colon 'Y, I feel prettycertain that I shall not look back withany regret upon the action I have takenduriig the last year; because all myideas, all my desires, and all my interests,so to speak, have been in the direction ofjoining in the federation with the othercolonies; and the only reason why I1 havenot gone heart and soul into the matterin the ternis of the Conmnonwealth Billis because I do not believe this Bill safe-guards, to the extent I think it ought tosafeguard, the interests of this colony.I am prepared to say we shall be able tolive under this Bill, that we shallprobably be able to flourish under thisBill. We mnay have a great mnanyadvantages under the Bill; but at thesamte time, I can see clearly that in the

[ASSEMBLY.) Second readh2g.

Fedeatin Bll: [23Mar 190.] $econd reading. 75

first years of federation there will be arent many disappointments, and a greatmany heart-burnings; and I have nohesitation in saying that we ought tohave better terms than we shall receivein this Bill.

Mn& GEORGoE: Why did you not getthem at the Convention?

Taxz PREMIER . That is a long story.There are a great many reasons. Thosewho now are foremost in shouting "TheBill to the people" did nothing at thatConvention, or very little. I do not wantto boast, but search the pages of theConvention debates, and -find out who,out of the ten members from this colony,fought for Western Australia, How

*many Limes did some of these membersspeak on the subject at all? I do not

*want to make any charges; the day forcharges has gone by; but I say, ifwe had been more true to ourselves,if we had better understood the matter,if we had understood it as wrell as we do

*now, success would have crowned ourefforts. We did not realise that thiscolony was going into federation. Thiswas a, fact that -none of the delegates didrealise, for all, or nearly all, the membersbelieved that Western Australia wouldnot enter thbe federation; and this isSomle excuse for them, too; they had somedelicafy in interfering too much with thedetails of a measure which they believedthe people of Western Australia 'would-never agree to, and they thought that totake too prominent a part in matters ofdetail in the Commonwealth Bill wouldbe unduly interfering with other people'saffairs, when they thouight their ownpeople would never enter the federation.well, some of us, at any rate, Wereawakened from that idea. I, perhaps,had that particular idea myself, to someextent; certainly the general feelingamhongst the delegates was that WesternAustralia would not join the union underthis Bill; and therefore when I say any-thing that may be considered somewhatharsh in regard to delegates not workinghard enoug-h, this point must always beremembered: the reason why membersdid not take a more prominent and activepart in the discussions -was because theyfelt we were not going to enter the feder-ation, and they were somewhat unwilling-very unwilling, in fact-to interfere inthe details of the measure, or to interfere

with the decisions arrived at by the Con-ventionas, when it appeared that thechances were altogether against thiscolony's entering the union. I can onlyhope that if this Bill does pass, and if weget to a, referendum of the people, every-one in the colony will. vote.

Mna. GEoRGEn: Hear, hear. Everyone.Tax PREMIER: Everyone who is on

the roll.SEVERAL MEMBERts: No, no.TaxE PREMIER: Do not get excited.

I warnt the Bill to go to the people.Mn. Gxonox: - I am quite cool.TH PREMIER: We all hear of

people very anxious to get on the roll,who kick up a terrible noise about notgetting on the roll; and when they doget on the roll, they will not take thetrouble to vote. That is the case all overthe colony. In Perth the other day, ata most bitterl y disputed election, one-halfthe'people on the roll did not vote; andso it is everywhere. People will get onthe roll, and will not take the trouble tovote; and others, again, will not evenlake the trouble to get on the roll, how-ever easy the process may be made; andit is even said that we ought to go roundand pick up such people and put themon the roll, because the people are tooidle or too indifferent to register theirnames. I think anything that is notworth looking after a little is not valuedmuch.

Mn. GEORtGE: That cuts both ways.TIRE PREMIER: But the hon. mem-

ber knows, for lhe is a man of the world,that if a thing is worth having, it isworth somne trouble to get; and if athing is so useless that people will nottake the slightest trocuble throughout thewhole year to obtain it, we may be surethey do not value it much. I think itvery likely that this last action of theGovernment in advising His Excellencyto call this Parliament together, and mymoving the second reading of this Billto-night, may have the effect, and Ibelieve it has had the effect, of coolingpeople down a little. People do not seemto have been in such a terrible state ofexcitement over federation during the lastfortnight or three weeks, either here, onthe goldfields, or anlywhere else. Theyseem to think that if the Government aregoing to take the matter up, thiere issomething wrong about it; that there

Pederation BiZI: [23 MAY, 1900.]

76 Federation Bill: [A EBY]Seodrdig

cannot be so much in this federationafter all, if the Government are takingup the matter; and, as I have said, Ithink that in consequence of the Govern-ment introducing the Bill, the interest willnot be half as great, when the electionscome off, as it would be if the Govern-ment were opposing the measure.

Mn. GEORGE: -that means that theGovernment are unpopular.

THE PREMIER: No. It is a generalpractice in human nature. There is ageneral sort of feeling that those inauthority are not so good as those inopposition. Very often the men who areopposing seem to have more friends thanthose who are in authority. You neednot go far for an example. There areplenty of things which the Opposition ofthis House will oppose, in regard towhich they get cheered when they go intothe country. They get cheered for thework itself, although they have opposedit. There are, I assert, plenty of cases.For instance, there is the question of thedual title. The general opinion through-out the goldfields is that the Governmentdid away with the dual title; that thepeople of the goldfields were robbedof their inalienable right and naturalheritage by the abolition of the dualtitle, and there were groans against theGovernment whenever people got tieopportunity. The fact is that the memberfor Albany (Mr. Leake) is the man whodid away with the dual title. He is moreresponsible for that measure than theGovernment, for the Government pro-posal was a better one by a long waythan the one the hion, member introduced;but we wanted. to do something, and wecould not do it without support, so wetook the hon. mnember's Bill, and thepeople on the goldfields cheer him as if hewere the saviour of the country. Thealluvialists will cheer 'him the same asthe alluvialists of North-East Coolgardiewill cheer the mnemb er for North-EastCoolgardie.

M&. Vosvln: Sometimes.THE: PRtEMIER. They forget that

everyone -who takes up a lease can bolda third of it through the hon, member'smotion, the clause being a most mons-trous one.

MR. GREGORY: You supported it.THE PREMIER: Yes; we did it all

in a hurry. The boa. member (Mr.

Vosper) proposed that any man goinginto the wilds of the colony anywhereand applying at the Warden's Court for alease of what might be 24 acres of thebest alluvial ground, should be able tohold a third of the lease until the wardendecided whether the ground was alluvial,all that the lessee was to pay beingperhaps £2 to the Treasury.

Mn. VOSPER:' Seeing "you wanted togive the lessees seven-eighths of the leasefor machinery. I think the compromisea very good one.

THE PREMIER: I never proposedanything so monstrous as that put forthby the hon. member. The bon. memberwill not tell his electors the facts of thecase. I say the hon. member for Albanyis responsible for the dual title. I onlymention this to show you how-

MR. LEAKE: How easily you canchange your mind.

Tue PREMIER: I only say this toshow you how people groan at u man asan enemny, although he is really theirfriend.

MR. KL&G5sMILL: The new alluvialchampion!

T-Rr EPREMIER: I know somethingabout any legislation I am responsiblefor, and I never would have supportedthe member for Albany but for the factthat something had to he done. TheMinister of Mines introduced a Bill withan interim title, and it was. a good Bill.

MR. Vosrp R: Absolutely unworkable.THE PREMI1ER: I suppose the hon.

member (Mr. Vosper) has had no experi-ence of mining or mining laws. He hasnot administered mining laws for 20years, as I have done. This, however, isonly by the way, and now I will come hackto this Enrabling Bill. What T have saidwas a little digression, and it is good todigress sometimes to show people in theirtrue colours. We desire to beseen in ourtrue colours, and no one else shoulddesire to be known otherwise than intheir true colours, For a young Statelike Western Australia-we are young inregard to our prosperity and also veryvigorous-the step we are about to takeis very important, because I will assumeall through in what I say to-night thatwe are going to pass this Bill either in the,shape in -which I have introduced it, or insome other shape not mnaterially different,and that we are going to enter federation,

[ASSEMBLY.] Second reading,

Fedeatin Bll: [23M~r 190.] Second reading. 77

because I think there is a tendency offeeling throughout the colony that weshould not be isolated-I do not meanisolated by territory. but isolated in senti-ment-from the rest of Australia. 'Thisis a very important matter, and one whichrequires great consideration. It is one towhich people need to pay attention,because no doubt not one mnan in ahundred in this colony knows whatthis federation is; and it is not likelymen should know. Not everyone is astudent or %. lawyer. Not everyone hastime to look into this question and clis-cuss it and understand it. It would beunreasonable to suppose that all havebeen able to do so. Therefore, when wehave passed this Bill, and before we takea referendum, it will be the duty of thepublic men in this colony to place a plainunvarnished tale before the people ofWestern Australia, if the people willlisten to them. That is by telling themwhat the Bill contains, pointing outthe good sides of it, and telling themalso the bad sides; because you maydepend upon it the Bill is going to workadversely in some ways, and what theelectors have to decide is whether thepreponderance is on the side of advantageor otherwise. And we must not lookonly to to-day, we must not have ourviews circumscribed only by the present,but maust also think of to-morrow andthe future in dealing with this greatquestion; because even if things will notbe so good at the beginning, and if webelieve they will be better as time goesalong, we shall not be acting wrongly insaying we will undergo the ordeal andtake time p lunge, falling into line with ourfellow cdonists in Australia, to try andbuild up in this Southern Ocean anothernation uder the Crown simnilar to theold country. For a, country to give upits autonomy, its power of self-govern-ment, its control of its own affairs, is justabout the same as a man giving up thecontrol of his business. I do not knowthat it is exactly the same, but I thinkthe question will be brought home to allof us by comparing the Government witha thing which belongs to you absolutely,but which you propose to hand over tosome other people for them to join withyou in the management; entering into apartnership, in fact.

A MEmBR:. An indissoluble partnership.

THnz PREMIER: Yes; there is thisabout it, that you cannot get out whenonce you have entered. Therefore, youmust be very careful before you put yourhead into the noose. In this country,thanks to a. wise beneficent ImperialParliament, we are at the present time asovereign State for all practical purposes.We are loy at subjects of the Crown, andsome of our laws have to receive the royalassent, but very few, and in fact, as I saidbefore, for all practica purposes WesternAustralia6 is a sovereign State, able tomanage its own territory and its ownbusiness, untramimelled, unrestricted, byany power on earth. We can sell al ourlands as we like; we can give themaway;, we can do anything we like withthe territory which that wise, beneficentImperial Parliament has entrusted to ourcare for the good of the people of thiscountry for ever. We have the feesimple of a million square miles ofterritory, a third of the Australiancontinenit, and one would have thoughtour position one of great responsibilityand quite enough to satisfy 175,000people; but our ideas of nationality seemto want more. We are not satisfiedwith our present position, while we aredivided from the rest of Australia by athousand miles of practically unoccupiedcountry. You cannot get to the rest OfAkustralia, unless you go across the sea forthree days, except by a tedious landjourney of over a thousand miles; butnotwithstanding this fact, the people ofthis country scem to desire and yearn fora closer union with their fellow colonistsin the rest of Australia. They want tobuild up to a greater extent than theythink th ey are build ing up under existingconditions, a commnonwealth, a uation infact, subject to the Crown in England; anatjon unitedI for many federal purposesas set forth in this Bill. The Common-wealth is not only for to-day nor to-morrow, but for ever. It is indissoluble.We are going to bind ouirsetres to joinand never separate again, unless of coursewe are separated by' an 'Act of theImperial Parliament. That wouild betheonly thing. An Act of the ImperialParliament could sever u1s aS it Muits Us.

Ma. MORAN:- That is not so certain.THE, PREMIER: Oh, yes, itis certain:

I think that would be all right. Thepower of the Imperial Parliament at any

Federation Bill: [2a MAY, igoo.i

78 Federation Bill: [ASML ]Seodraig

rate will remain. The chief reason whywe desire this change, the chief reasonoperating no doubt in our minds, is onethat does us ver 'y great credit, becauseI do not believe that anyone in thiscolony, who has any knowledge of publicmatters and takes the trouble to lookinto them, thinks he is going to haveianygreat material benefit at the present tmeIt is not likely that such benefit willoccur now. Of course I know in theother colonies they do expect materialbenefit. As I have told you before,South Australia expects to have her cornand wine admitted into all the Australiancolonies free, whilst Victoria wants hermanufactures admitted free, and Tas-mania her fruit free. As to New SouthWales, I think she has not so much togain; but Queensland wants sugar to besent in free all over Australia.

Mn. MORAN:- And cattle.T13E PREMIER: Cattle and sugar.

I think the sugar exported from Queens-land last year was of the value ofsomething like a million and a half, thevalue of her cattle being something sini-lar. Queensland will have these thingsadmitted free, and there is no denyingthe fact that she will benefit by federa-tion. She has nothing to lose and every-thing to gain. As far as I can see, SouthAustralia has a good deal to gain, andnot very much to lose. We 'know thatVictoria hopes to gain very much. Tas-mnania also hopes to gain very much, butwhether she will or not, I am not socertain. 'New South Wales is in theposition of the mother of the family, andI am of opinion she thinks that with hervast resources and her large population,with her coal and iron, and her positiongenerally as the wealthiest of all thecolonies, she will be able, at any rate, tohold her own. In fact, Mr. Reid aptlyput it when he said that when you puta terrier in with a lot of kittens, youknow which will get fattest first.

MR. GEORGE: He does not know whatdogs eat.

THE PREMIER: Western Australia,is full of l6yalty to the Crown, full ofpatriotism, and full of a desire to joinbands with the people in the Easterncolonies. I think our desire to joinwithout a clear prospect of gain does usgreat credit. We think oar action willstrengthen the Empire, and that our

political life will be widened and elevated.We think, too, we will probably be ableto hold our own. I do. Notwithstandingall our disadvantages, I believe we will beable to hold our own, thanks to theindustry of our people and our greatresources. I do not care where I stand,whether in this House or anywhere inWestern Australia, I shall try and putthis matter before the people of the colony,and I will tell them that I will vote forthis Bill; but Ilam not going to tell themeither here or anywhere else that I cansee any great beneft to Western Australiafor somne time to come. In fact, I thinkthere will be a great many difficulties. forus to overcome. I shall be charged, as Iwas when I spoke last year, with makingan unfederal speech.- I ami not makingan unfederal speech. I am a federalist. Idesire to federate, and I will vote for thisBill and take the risk of it; but at thesame time I must not try to deceive thepeople. I am trying to set the matterbefore. the people of the colony in a fairway, and let them judge, and I hope thatwhen they have heard what I have to saythey will come to the conclusion at whichI have arrived-that the best thing wecan'dc is to throw in our lot with the restof Australia for good or for ill. As Isaid before, our pride in the future, andit will be a very great pride too, will notbe so much that we are Western Aus-tralians as that we are Australians. Ourpride wvill be in our country, the whole ofAustralia, the same as is the case with theCaiadiams and the Americans; and wehave this to guide us also, that in Canadaand in the United States-and this is agood argument which may be used by any-one-the people have not suffered throughfederation.

MR. MORAN:- We do not know that.THE PREMIER: We do. I have

travelled through Canada., and I haveused t-his argument before. You cannotcome across a Canadian, in fact I nevercame across one, who says he does notthink federation was a good thing forCanada.

Mn. MoRANq: Under the terms theygot.

Tns PREMIER: They have forgottenall about termns; and so it will be with us.In after years a new generation will riseup in this country who will forget thatwe were ever divided, and will only think

[ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

Federtion ill: 23 kt&r, 1900.]eon eaig

of the nation as a, federated Australia,Australia as a whole. It seems to methe only drawback to us, andone of whichwe ought to get rid, is isolation. We areso cut off from the rest of Australia., thatwe shall have to get rid of the isolation;and Fremantle will have to be made the-first port of call from Europe, and therewill have to be an overlandl railway toPort Augusta. We have all been veryproud recently-I am sure I have been,and no doubt hon. members and peoplein the colony have. been proud-to feethat we were able to render some littleassistance, though perhaps not required,to the mother land in dealing with thetrouble in South Africa. This colonywill never again have an opportunity ofthat kind, if we enter federation, becausewe shiall not have the power to raisetroops In this colony, and our glory and

pride will be in the troops that will gofrom usrai as a, whole.

MR. Monx:-m That is exactly the casenow.

THEP PREMIER: In fact, there willbe no soldiers here, and no volunteers,because the control of military affairs inAustralia will be entirely under theFederal Parliament. We will never beable to raise money by customs duties afterwe enter the federation ; and perhapssome persons will say, "1Thank goodnessfor that!" But if we cannot do it bylaws passed in this colony, the FederalParliament will have the power to regu-late customs duties, and it may be doneby those who will not be so miint insymnpathy with people here as are theGovernment under the present system.You will not be able to cry out so easilyagainst the Government, when it is twoor three thousand miles away, as you donow; and if you have a Town Hallmeeting, it will not have such effect onthe Federal Government, so far away, asperhaps such a meeting would have on a,Government in the colony. That perhapswill be a goad thing, for I think there ismuch to be said in favour of the Govern-mnent not being too close, because theeffect is to induce a good deal of agitationwhich does no good. Whatever may bethe benefits of the new system, we shouldnot forget that uinder the system ofgovernment existing in this' colony, wehave been able to change the face of thecountry, by covering it with railways and

telegraphs and public works of variouskinds. Yet, although we are well awarethat so much has been done in this way,we also know that some people here arenot satisfied with what has been done,and they want something more or some-thin different. They will elyutathe Government who have done all thesethings have done only what these fault-finders could have done if they had hadthe money; that they could have bor-rowed money and spent it as well as theGovernment here have done. They forgotall the while that it is not the borrowingof money, but it is the way the money isexpended, that is the real test of goodgovernment; and the fact remains thatthroughout this country we have maderailways and roads and erected publicbuildings, and extended telegraphs, andsupplied many conveniences; and, I say,not a man can show that there has beenany expenditure of magnitude that hasbeen ill-spent. In entering the federa-tion, we shall give up our right to legis-late on many important questions, manymore than most persons in the colonyand even more than members herearc probably aware of ; because in theOommonwealth Bill, many subjects arementioned on which the Federal Parlia-ment will have power to legislate, andtheir legislation will over-ride any locallegislation in the several States. Lookingat this list of subjects on which theFederal Government can legislate, wemay be subject to constant annoyancesfor il long time after entering federationuntil we get used to the change, for weshall have to give up legislation on manysubjects with which we have hithertodealt in this colony, and the legislationof the Federal Parliament will supersedeany legislation by the local Parliament.This transfer of power may cause a gooddeal of friction, for though the FederalBill does not prevent us from legislatingin regard to various matters mientioned inClause 51, yet it gives to the FederalParliament the right to legislate, andour local legislation will be over-riddenwherever it comes in conflict with federallegislation. There is no doubt, and Ihope everybody will acknowledge it, thatunder federation there is going to be agreat change in this colony; that we aregoing to be a subordinate State, ascompared with our present condition as a

Federation Bill: Second reading.

80 Federation Bill: [A EML ]Seodraig

sovereign State; for we are a sovereignState now, having complete control overthose matters which under the federalsystem will he transferred to the controlof the Federal Parliament. We shallstill be able to make laws on varioussubjects, and be able to raise revenue invarious ways; but all these will be subjectto the superior power of the FederalParliament, the State Parliament beingsubordinate. There is something I wouldlike to mention to members to-night, andas all ought to know it there ia no reasonwhy I should not mention it, and that is;that this House will be subordinate indealing with those subjects in regard towhich power will remain to it to legislate;for tire legislation passed in this colony,as a subordinate State, will be subject tothe higher authority of the FederalParliament on the same matters; foras soon as the Federal Government havelegislated on any subject which in anyway, interferes with our local law, theeffect will be that our local law willhave no force, and the law of theFederal Parliament will supersede it.

Trade and com merce " is one thing whichwill be governed by the Federal Parlia-ment, and it will take all the lawyers inthe High Corts of Australia to definethe limits of the power of the FederalParliament on this wide subject. Thenthere is "taxation ": that is a goodbig word, and the Federal Governmentcan tax everything in Australia exceptthe lands belonging to each State. Iremember the Ma yor of Perth (Mr. A.Forrest) saying Once that thle MunicipalCouncil would have the first show oftaxation in this city under federation;but I told him he would come No. 3;that when federation takes place, theorder of taxation will be first the FederalParliament, secondly the Parliament ofthe State, and thirdly the council of themunicipality. It may be that I amlooking too much on the dark side ofthings, but I do not think so. I want topoint out what will probably happenunder federation. You 'know that thepeople in Australia, as a whole, areregarded as being very democratic; andthe mass of the people having the powerof the votes, the tendency always 'hasIbeen, and will be under federation, torelieve the working 'people as much aspossible from the pressure of taxation.

It is quite right too, because those whccan afford. to pay taxes are the bestpersons to tax, and not to tax those whcare ill able to afford it. If you put ismall tax on an immense number olpeople, the result is to bring in aximmense sum of money; whereas if yotput a higher tax on a few people winmay be better able to bear taxatiorindividually, if you tax the few who an(rich, your tax will bring in very littlebecause it will touch so few personsThat is one reason why the SalvatiotArmy flourishes so much, for it assistsand works with the operative classeswho are so many that a. small contributionfrom a large number of people brings ina larger revenue than if the managers olthat organisation were working only witia selected class, a. small number. If youcan only get the mass of the peoplEto contribute their miites towards tax-ation, you will do far better for revenuepurposes than if you get the wealthyclasses to contribute larger amountsindividually. The tendency of the federalsystem will be to have free-trade as faras possible. That is the tendency of thedemocratic politician.

MR. MORAN: No; it is the opposite.THE PREMIER: I do not think so.

The object of the democratic politician isto try and tax land and property, so as toavoid. a high customs tariff.

Mr. MORtAN : No, -no.Tnn PREMIER:- In the first place,

you must have a certain revenue foricarrying on the worki of government, andSew miy depend upon it that free-trade

NwSouth Wales will not be willing tohave a, high federal tariff; that peoplewho have been accustomed to get goodsimported free will not be willing, underfederation, to have a high protectivetariff;i and my opinion is that thetendency of legislation-I do not say atthe beginning, for I have no doubt thatat the beginning the Federal Parliamentwill have a high customs tariff--thetendency will be to reduce the customs:tariff, and the resnlt will be that property-will be taxed probably to a, larger extentthan it is at present. Then there is theqfuestion of -,bounties," wvhich will beentirely under federal control. We havenot had much experience of bounties inthis colony, but it has been the custom inother places to give bounties for encourag-

[ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

Federtion ill?[2.3 MAY, 1900.) eodraig

ing production. We in this colony willhave no power, under federation, to offerany such encouragement to local produc-dion, because that power will be exercised,if at all, through the Federal Parliament.Postal, telegraph, and telephone services:the control of these will pass from us tothe Federal Parliament, and I may heremention the action I took at the FederalConvention in Melbourne, in endeavouringto reserve the control of these services toeach State. One does not always getcredit for the good he attempts to do, butis often blamed for what he has not done.At the Melbourne Convention, I movedthat the control of the telegraph andtelephone services within the coloniesshould he retained by each State, and thatonly the postal service and the telegraphservice beyond Australia, dealing withthe outside world, should be under thecontrol of the Federal Parliament. Inthat endeavour I was defeated. I wouldlike to know how it is pos??ible that theFederal Government, with its executivetwo or three thousand miles away, can beexpected to manage the postal service inthis State,. together -with the telegraphand telephone services-I want to knowhow this can be managed at so great adistance from us, and give so muchsatisfaction a-s does the management bya Government in this colony. Thething cannot be done. If a person wantsa telephone erected, or extended somedistance, he will have to see thle localpostmaster, who will be tinder federaldirection, and that postmaster will havethe power to say, if he chooses, " I cannotdo it," or he may say, 11I will not do it."You may depend upon it that having thepower, these federal officers located here,as in each State, will use their power, forwe know that autocrats are built thatway. If you put an official in a positionwhere the central authority cannot getat him, that official will soon developinto an autocrat, if he was not one before.Take, for example, the telegraphs whichwe have built all over these gold fields:-will anyone tell me that these could havekeen done as quickly or as well if thework 'had been under the directionof an Executive Federal Government,located far away from this colony. Myopinion is that we can manage ourown business, in regard especially totelegraphs and telephones, far better

through a Parliament sitting here thanwill be the case if these services aretinder the control of the Federal Parlia-nient. At the Melbourne Convention,we were unable to carry my proposal, andtherefore the control of our telegraphsand telephones, and of our postal service,will pass from us under federation, and-will be transferred to the Federal Gov-ernment. Naval and -military defence:this maust necessarily pass to the FederalGovernment. We have not done muchin a military direction in this colony, butif anything does become necessary it willhave to be done for us, and not by us.Lighthouses: we have built a few, and-we hope to get more, but the control ofthese will also pass to the Federal Gov-ernmeit, and whatever has to be done infuture must be done by themn. Quaran-tine: we have managed this, hitherto,but tinder federation the managementwill pass from us. Currency, coining,legal tender, and banking: I think thatto transfer the control of these thingswill be beneficial. Naturalisation, immi-gration: these also will be controlled bythe Federal Government. We have beenable to pass laws limiting the introductionof alien labour, but we will not be ableto deal with this subject, as the FederalGovernment will have control. Influx oferiiniual : we can prevent this, at thepresent time, but the Federal Governmentwill be able to legislate so as to take that.out of our hands. These are a, few of theitems on which our power to legislatewill be over-ridden by, or be made sub-servient to, the power of the FederalParliament. It may be said, and I haveno doubt some of my friends on this sidewill say, that if all these things are to begiven up by our entering federation, whyshould we consent to give up all thesepowers and privileges which we havehitherto exercise4' as a sovereign State?My answer is that the people seem towish it. I believe the people of thiscolony wish to give tip these privilegesI have referred to, and become partand parcel of one Australian people,to work out our own destiny as a, nation.The desire throughout, and I think itdeserves commendation, is that we shallbe stronger ais a, nation than we can be asseparate States. I cannot do better thangive the reason stated by the much-despised Joint Select Committee, whose

Federation Bill: Second reading.

82 Federation Bill: A E 3L. eodraig

report, I think, was a Very wise one, :ndone that will stand the test of time,-and is certainly worth repeating.Thcommittee said:

They recognised that, under federation,Australia will occupy a higher plane in theworld's opinion, and that it will tend towardsthe consolidation of the Empire in this partof the world.

These are considerations that shouldweigh with all of Lis, that it will tend tothe consolidation of the Empire and makeit stronger. Besides all that, if we camsay, notwithstanding the disadvantageswhich I have pointed out, that we wouldbe able at the same time to hold our own,if not at the beginning, yet shortly after-wards, then I think these considerationsshould have great weight with is. Inregard to this Bill, I should like to pointout that although I have referred tofederation and its disadvantages, and alsoto its advantages, that question does notreally arise now. There is no greatnecessity to deal with that question onthe present occasion, unless we come tothe conclusion that this Bill is so badthat we feel justified in saying we willnot send so bad a Bill to the people ofthis colony to have a voice in regard to'it. I said, when speaking here somnetime ago, that in my opinion the.Bill wasnot of that character; that I thought itwas not such a Bill that I could say tomyself, "It is so bad that I will not doanything to let the people have a, voice onit." I said at that time that it was aBill which was not liberal enough inregard to this colony; that it was not aBill the people should decide to accept.I also Raid we should refer the two Bills(this Bill and the amended Bill) to thepeople. I was sorry at the time that thetwo Bills were not so referred; but I amnot sorry now, because I think the peoplewill be in a better position to judge onthe matter than they would have been atthat time. It will be for the peoplethemselves to say; and although werepresent the people in this House, it isno use our thinking we can carry on themanagement of this country against thewishes of the electors. The majoritymust rule in a democratic country; andwe always say, when we address publicmeetings, voz populi is voz dot, andwe believe the decision of the peoplewhen expressed m~ a proper mauner is

not very fa fromn the miarkc. 1 mustsay it w a as some disappointment to methat the debate last evening on theAddress-in-reply was so short. I shouldhave liked to hea- more said inthe debate, and I fually expected themember for Albany (Mr. Leake) wouldhave addressed the House after the leaderof the Opposition (Mr. Illingworth) satdown. I did not come prepared to makea speech on that occasion, but I cameprepared to make a reply; and as themewas nothing to reply to, I had nothingto say. I did not think it necessary tomake a speech, because I intended tomake one on the second reading; but Iregret there was not something muoresaid on that occasion. We could havevery well filled up yesterday evening withsome wise observations from gentlemenon the Opposition benches. But althoughthat was a great disappointment to me, Icannot finish what I have to say to-nightwithout referring to the great pleasureafforded me by the speech of the memberfor East Goolgardie (Mr. Moran) on theAddress-ini-reply. I think, whateveropinion hion. members may have in regardto the conclusions the lion. memuberdrew or the statements lie made, everyonemust have regarded that utterance as amnanly and independent one; and anotherthing which pleased me very much wasthat throughout his speech his sentimentsseemed to ]ne to be those of a mananxious for the permanent welfare of hisadopted country, and there was no quali-fication or reservation about it. Thehion. member had not come here to mincewords. One could see that out of thefulness of the heart the mouth spoke;and I think I may say to the hion.member, on behalf of every member onthis (Treasury) bench at any rate, thathis speech, whether we do or do not agreewith all of it, did the lion. member greathonour, and ought to be a very valuablecontribution to the literature of this veryimportant subject.

MR. LEAKn: It was anti-federal.THE PREMIER: I do not think so.

I think he set forth both sides of thequestion. Some people will tell us thisHouse has no right to deal with thisquestion except by referring it to theelectors. Although I intend, before Isit down, to ask lion, members to pass thisBill and refer it to the electors, I am not

[ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

Federtion ill:[23 MAY, 1900.] Seodraig

'going to tell themr that they have parted-because they have not parted-with anyof their constitutional powers. ThisHouse has in no way parted with anypower it possessed as the representativeof the people of this colony ; and there-fore we have a perfect right, and alwayshad a perfect right, to deal with thisquestion in the way we think best.As to the referendum, we must notforget that the referendum is now beingused in all the colonies of Australia forthe first time. Until recently, we knewvery little indeed about this referendum.It is a foreign plant, of foreign growth,which hats recently been transplantedinto Australian soil; and in regard to itI can only say, if we want to maintainthe constitution of this country on thebasis of the constitution of the mothercountry, we shall have to be very carefui,or else this referendum will sweep awayour constitution, which is moulded on theconstitution of Great Britain. We soonseem to get used to new things. It iscurious that, in the mother country,this splendid plant has never been intro-duced. There they have had great comn-motions, great political troubles; theyhave had all those troubles in connectionwith Home Rule, and many other agita-tions; but we never even heard anyoneof any importance suggest that a referen-dum should be taken; and, in fact, it isunknown at the present time in themother country. But it has been adoptedhere, and it seeing to have had a verygreat growth.

MRt. VosPER: It is used in Eng-land for local government or municipalpurposes.

THE PREMIER: All I can say is, wewill have to be very careful as to ourconstitution. We will have to make upour minds very soon whether we axe to begoverned by the referendum or by aconstitution based on the British Con-stitution. This Commonwealth Bill hasbeen adopted by all the other colonies-by Victoria, South Australia, New SouthWales, Queensland, and Tasmania; andas two-thirds, I suppose, of the people ofthis colony, or somewhere about two-thirds of the people at the present time,hail from one or other of those colonies,those people quite outnumber, I expect,the rest of their fellow colonists ; and itis not unreasonable that they, coming

from the Eastern colonies, should be ofopinion that they should have the sameopportunity afforded them of voting uponthis Bill by a referendum, as has beengiven to their kindred in the othercolonies. We may tell them they havenever had it before in the history of thiscolony; we may tell them that for 1,000years and more no such thing has evertaken place in any British country. Theywill tell us it is their right, and that weare taking away their right from them-a right which neither they nor theirfathers, nor their fathers' fathers everhad; but still they know their kindred inthe other colonies have had it, and theysay, " We want it too.' Welt, I believeit would not be more difficult to keepback the waves of the sea than to try tomake the people of this colony believethat they should not have a vote in thisreferendum on the question of federation.

MRt. ILLINGWoRTH: And at once.THE: PREMIER: I say those are the

facts, whatever people may think aboutthem. Personally, I do not like thereferendum, and one of my reasons is thatI have never got used to it. I do notknow whither it will lead me; therefore Iam careful: I do not want to trust myselfto a ship that may wreck me.

MR. MORAN: ' Lead us not intotemptation."

THE PREMIER: And I do not likeit. But I am convinced the majority ofmy fellow colonists here are determinedthey will have it, and I am not going toblock the road; I am not going to standup and say to them " You shall not haveit," when I know they will have it. Infact, I think they have a good deal ofreason on their side, because they say:"All the rest of Australia has hadit; three millions of people in this conti-nent, the same people, of the same race,having the same religion, the same cus-toms and habits, and the same tmudi-tions as ourselves, have had it; and whyshould not we be in the same position asthey ?" There is a good deal of reasonin that, and therefore I think, seeing thatover three millions have had the refer-endum in the five different colonies of theEast, we ought not to say, "Well, youshall not have it." My opinion is, thepeople should have it, and that is thereason why I shall ask hon. members tosupport this referendum to the people.

Second reading.Federation BiIZ:

84 Federation Bill: [ASML.Seodedi.

Of course, men are actuated by all sortsof motives. I suppose everyone believes,or at all events hopes, that this changewill be for the better. Mind you,we like change, especially if we arenot "flush" of money. Then we thinka change will not do us any harm.and it may do some good. A man withat good estate and living comfortablydoes not want change; but the man whois working for his daily bread and at theend of the week has nothing, says tohimself, " I am getting only enough tolive on; this change will do me no harm,and I think it will do me some good; letme try it." There is no doubt most ofus like change. Some people even desirea change of Government. Although thisGovernment is so beneficent, still somepeople seem to think they could do betterwith a new one, though I believe theyaltogether forget what Shakespeare makesone of his characters say:

rather hea those ins we haveThan fly to others that we know not of.

MR. ILLTNGwORTH: You admit theyare ills?

THe PREMIER: I believe there areills everywhere, every day: I feel themmyself. Unless you think the millenininhas arrived, I am sure you must admitevery thing is not plain sailing, whetherwith Governments or with private indi-viduals. However, these people believefederation will do them some good, andthat is why they want it; and they do notthink it will do them any harm, or theythink, if it does someone else harm, itwill not do them any harm; and theybelieve high wages. cheap food, and goodtimes will aill follow the federation. Ihope they may. For my own part, I donot think there will be very great changesin those respects. I do not think wageswill be higher, or food very muchcheaper; but at any rate, I hope thetimes will be good. I speak for myselfas well as for other hon. members,and I say: if anyone in this Houselooks into this matter-and I have nodoubt all we responsible people havelooked into it, and it requires lookinginto, too-if such a one thinks permanentdisaster is coming upon this colony byour giving over the management of ouraffairs, to some extent, to other people, hisduty is, no doubt, to oppose federationalways, everywhere, at all times, and at

all seasons. But I may say I am not oneof those. I think this Bill is not so badthat I should oppose it. I think it oughtto be better, but I think it very probablethat we shall get on all right. I think itwill not be so bad as some picture, or asgood as others picture. I think betweenthe two is about where we shall be, therid media will he about right, and ourposition will neither be very much betternor very much worse; because I believein the genius of the people; we shall beable to work out our own destiny in thiscountry just as well as we did before; weshall be able to hold our own, consider-ing the great resources of the country ;and I can only say, if times be bad for usunder federation, there certainly will notbe good times for all the rest of thepeople of Australia. Feeling thus, andfeeling that we have only 174,000 people,while there are over 3,000,000 on theother side of Australia; feeling as I do-I feel it and believe it, too-that thepublic opinion and sentiment of thiscountry is certainly in favour of this Billbeing referred to the people; feeling too,as I do, that all endeavours on my partto get the amendments required by theJoint Select Oommittee have been usuc-cessful, and that they cannot now beobtained: I think the only course I, asa loyal West Australian, as one whodesireas to do his best to bind together thevarious parts of Australia, and to uniteas far as possible the people. living in thevarious colonies can. take is to give thepeople of this colony an opportunityof saying whether they will have federa-tion or whether they will not. Of courseit has been said that I did not do my bestto get the amendments, and that if I hadstuck out a little longer I might have gotthem; but I do not think that is so. Lethon. members read the correspondencethat is tabled; and that is not half thecorrespondence which took place, becausenearly all of it is confidential, and therewas great difficulty in getting the neces-sary consent to publish what has beenpublished. I think anyone, after readingthat correspondence, must admit thatevery effort which could possibly be madewas made; and I must say, too, that Iwas under a great disadvantage in dealingwith the Premiers of the other colonies,inasmuch as I had no mandate from theParliament of this country to deal with

Second readiug.[ASSEMBLY.]

Fedraton ill (2 Mn 190.3 Second reading. 85

this question. If I had had sncb a man-date from this Parliament, I should havebeen in a far stronger position ; but I wassubjected to the taunt-and it was madeunsparingly-that I had no authoritywhatever either from people or Parlia-ment, and therefore they, were wilypersonal requests of mine.

MR. GEORGE: You never asked Parlia-ment for authority.

THE PREMIER: Oh yes; we did askfor i t. The Joint Select Committee'sreport carried our proposals through thisHouse, but the 'Upper House threw themout. - If we had had the authority- ofboth Houses to communicate with theother colonies, anyone can see that myposition would have been very muchstronger. But I wish to say that noharm, but good, has resulted from thedelay. People have talked and thoughtabout this matter to an extent they neverwould have if we had sent the Billstraight away to a referendum; and theadvantage thus gained is that, what-ever happens in the future, if we enterfederation, and it is not as good as weanticipated, it can never be said that thepeople of this colony did not know whatthey were voting about. If they do notknow now what they are going to voteabout, it is their own fault. They havehad the subject before thenm for twvelvemonths; the Bill has been distributedthroughout the length and breadth ofthe country; tire newspapers have beenraving about it; and therefore I trustthose who vote upon the measure willhave sufficient knowledge of the subjectto vote as they desire. The Joint SelectCommittee were, abused a good deal, weretold they were of no use, and that theywere wasting time; but I think theirlaboursi were productive of great good.I think they did a. great amount of goodby publishing the evidence of persons whowere against federation, anyway; and, iffederation comes about, people will not beaIble to say they dlid not hiave the otherside of it placed before them, becausenearly all the witnesses examined hy theJoint Committee were opposed to federa-tion, and people had the opportunity ofreading what those witnesses said; andif people had not a like opportunity ofreading the evidecec_- of witnesses infavour of federation, that was becausewe could not get such witnesses to conte

forward. There seemed to be a, dead setmade against this committee. It seemedto be thought altogether unnecessary,that it would do no good, that it was awaste of time, and all sorts of other hardthings. were said of it; but I feel quitesure that as time goes on, this report ofthe Joint Select Committee will not bethought so badly of in the future as somepeople seem to think of it to-day. Thenwe had the discussions in both Houses:-they perhaps did some good. Then alsowe had the unfortunate fact that theUpper House did not pass either ofthe two Bills or anything else: theyvoted against everything. Sometimesthe debate seemed to be a trianugu-lar duel, some members voting one wayonce, and another way at other time;;and those who were most in favourof federation, as I said before, enteredinto a, conspiray-I will not use thatword, but I will say an arrangementwas entered into between the memberfor Al1bany (Mr. teake) and two ofhis friends in the Upper House, bywhich they shut the door upon anynegotiations whatever with the Govern-mnents. of the other colonies. They wereto blame for that, at any rate. T thinkthey will acknowledge they were toblame for shutting the door. I havealways designated them as federalists-at-any-price. They would take federationon trust; whereas I thought it best tolook into the matter, and that we shouldjudge for ourselves as well as we could.'We cannot all be experts, but I thoughtwe ha-d better look into the problem, andnot take it on trust as hon. membersopposite have taken it; because I do notfor a moment think many mnembexrs ofthis House-there are very few excep-lions-really know the CommonwealthBill thoroughly, even at the present time;and if that be the case, they certainlydid not know it several months ago. -Ishould except, perhaps, the memberfor Albany (Mr. teake), with his longlegal experience and training; but Ivery much question whether any othermember has given the Bill as muchconsideration as he. However, that isa matter of opinion. My point is that allthese discussions, and all these difficultiesthat have been raised, have contributedto educate the public mind; and wemuist remember that the requests made

Federation Bill: (23 MA.Y, 1900.]

86 Federation Bill: [ASML.Seodraig

by the Joint Select Committee werenot so unreasonable as was thought.Those requests received a great dealof support from the Eastern colonies.Several of the Premiers were personallyin favour of them. We know that Mr.Reid, the er-Preinier of New SouthWales, was recently in favour of givinguts this tariff concession; we all knowthat the great Argus newspaper ofMelbourne was in favour of our havingit, that the Daily Telegraph of Sydneyand the Government of Queenslind wereunmaiously in favour of it, and thatTasmania too was in favour of it; so,if it had not been that the Governmentsof the colonies were afraid to alter theBill, because they knew, or feared,that other alterations would then berequired in other places, there is notthe slightest doubt there was a con-census of opinion throughout Australiathat our requests were reasonable. Theonly pity is that we did not know itsmuch when we left the Convention as wedo now, because if we had been as wideawake and had possessed informationsuch as we now have, we should haveobtained from the Federal Conventionitself all that we were fighting for. Thenthere is another reason why we did notsucceed, and this is one which I supposeevery one will admit. The colony wasnot united.

MR. MORAN: That was the principalreason.

THE PREMIER: Ther was anotherreason, this being that the Premiersfound a difficulty, because they fearedother alterations; and the changes thatwe made were not granted. We weresubject to the remark and the taunt thatins-tenths of the people of Western

Australia wanted the Bill as it was, anddid not desire any alterations. We weretold by the Federal League, or something,that Western Australia did not want thealterations, and in fact would not havethem. No one wishes to give concessionsif he can avoid it. It was thought, Whytry to meet die views of the Premier ofWestern Australia, when his own peopledo not want the alterations? With allthese circumstances against us, and withthe fact that I had no mandate fromParliament to ask for anything, and therewas no guarantee that I could do any-thing, I do not think it is wonderful

that we were not able to succeed. Butwe very nearly succeeded; very nearlyindeed. We had even the Secretary ofState on our side, who, in so many words,told the people of the Eastern colonies,in a telegram published here, that ourrequests were reasonable and ought tobe conceded. Mr. Chamberlain, as weknow, is a man accustomed to finance,and only the other day he told us, inthe speech in which he introduced themeasure, that he would not envy theChancellor of the Exchequer in WesternAustralia under the Federation Bill.You can take that for what it is worth.Do not attach too much importance to it

Ior too little; but it shows you that wehave not been asking for things that areunreasonable, and that we were trying todo our best for Western Australia. Noone can say anything against that, anyway. Considering the small differencethe granting of our desire would havemade to anyone out of this colony, andthe advantage to us of complete fiscalfreedom for five years, I think we oughtto have had the support of everyonethroughout the length and breadth of thiscolony. What did that desire amountto ? It only meant that the Parliamentof this country which will be elected in afew months under the extended franchiseshould have the power of passing theirown tariff for five years; and, would youbelieve it, there are people in this country,amongst them being the member forAlbany, who will not trust their ownfellow colonists to make a tariff for them-

*selves for five years, but think the peopleof Eastern Australia art- more able topass a tariff for the people of WesternAustralia for that period, and that theywould look after our interests to a greaterextent than we ourselves are able to do.Was there ever a case in the world wherepeople were ready to throw away their

Iindependence and to miake such an admis-sion as this: We will not trust themen and women of Western Australia tomake a tariff for five years, but we willrather trust the people of Eastern Aus-tralia to make a tariff for us! Good-ness gracious! One cannot understand it;and that is what the Federal League ofWestern Australia, as theycall themselves,have been doing. They have been sayingto the people of this colony-I willreiterate it-that it is far better for its

Second reading.[ASSEMBLY.]

Federatin Bill: [23 MY, 1900.] Seodrdig

not to have an amendment of our tarifffor five years than to have it. If that iscommon sense, if that is patriotism, ifthat is self-reliance, then I say I differfrom the lion, member for Albany andhis Federal League.

MnR. LEAxE: Where are you quotingfrom ?

THE PREMIER: I amn telling thetruth.

Mn.R TLEAKE: I thought so,THE PREMIER: You do not deny it,

do you?MR. LEAKS: Yes.THE PRE MIER: You opposed by

every meansF in your power the concessionI asked for, until the last minute. Youhave said over and over, and over again,that you did not want it. There is onlyone good, one patriotic thing you havedone in this matter, and that is thesending of a telegram advising that mywishes should be complied with. Forthat telegrain I give you credit, and Ithank you for it. I repeat that is theone good patriotic thing you have donein this matter, because hitherto through-out the whole campaign you have beenunwvilling to trust your own countrymen,your own friends, the people you havelived with all your life, the people youmeet daily. You were afraid to trustthem, and thought all the wisdom andgood sense was centred in people younever met aud with whom you havenothing in common, and of whom youknow as much as they know of you. Thebon. member has forgotten the friends ofhis youth, and thrown himself body andsoul into the hands of people who carenothing for him and know uothing abouthim.

Mu. LEASrE: And won in the longrun.

THE PREMIER: The hon. membercan have that, if hie likes, but I do notthink it is much to boast about. If hehas won by throwing over everyone hehas known and honoured, too, in thiscolony, and has thrown himself body Indsoul into the hands of people who do notknow this country and have no realinterest in or love for it, I think he canhave his reward.

MR. LEASE:, Oh! Go on and explainthe Bill.

THE PREMIER: We heard the crylast year-I was going to say the parrot

cry, but one of the parrots is away thissession-,, The Bill to the people: -dieBill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the

*Bill." Are they getting it now ? Have*they the Bill, and nothing but the Bill?I say they have not, and I am very gladof it. I only wish the Bill were more inaccord with my wishes than it will be whenit leaves the Imperial Parliament. TheImperial Parliament are not going to cutAustralia adrift and let her go her ownway altogetber. We are going to he partof the British Empire still, I am veryglad to know, and we are going to have

*a better trihunal for the whole of theBritish Empire, which is one of thethings those politicians, lawyer politicianswho framed the Bill, desired we shouldnot have. I am glad. to know thosepoliticians are not to have their way, andthat the hon. member will not have"the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothingbut the Bill," to send to the people. TheBill is amended. After saying they wouldhave "the Bill, the whole Bill, andnothing but the Bill," without any amnend-mnents, these politicians now accept thealterations which the Imperial Govern-ment insist on ;but they would not acceptalterations to meet the just requirementsof Western Australia. Those require-ments were just, and were put forwardwith only one reason and one object, thatbeing to try and safeguard as far as wecould the financial interests of thiscountry.

MRt. VosPEx: What Bill or part of theBill does this measure deal withP

THE PREMIER:- The Bill as amended.MR. VosnaR: The amendments are

not there.TnE PREMIER:- If you look you will

see that they are referred to. I wouldlike to say again this is no party questionwith me. I am glad, however, to say mycolleagues who sit on this (the Treasury)bench are going to vote with me to referthe Bill to the people. It is not becausethey are colleagues of mine, but becausethey agree that the time has now arrivedwhen the Bill should be so referred. Ishould he sorry indeed, as I said allalong, for Australian federation to comeabout and for us on this side not to be

1 able to take part in the early struggles tocomplete the work which is now onlybeginning; still I think that the words ofthe Joint Select Committee are as true

Federation Bill.- Second reading.

88 Federation Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

to-day as they were when they wereadopted. They were these-

There is little doubt in the minds of yourCommittee that, takcing into consideration thepresent flourishing condition of Western Aus-tralia, its mineral wealth, its infant industries,its large revenue, and its splendid prospects, itwould have been better if federation had comeat a time when the colony could have enteredtho Commonwelth on more eqnalterms; and ifyour Commnittee had been solely guided by theevidence of the witnesses examined, theywould have been obliged to report thatfederation was undesirable for this colony atthe present time.The report went on to say that the Com-mittee approached the subject with adesire to report as favourably as possibleon the Bill referred to their consideration.That is the feeling which I have in mymind this evening. As I said before, themain question we have to decide now isnot whether we shall have federation ornot, but whether we shall give theelectors of this colony an opportunity ofToting On this Bill, and saying whetherthe y wvill have federation or not. Wewould be acting wisely, and I think inthe interests of Australia, in the interestsof the British Empire, and, taking it forall in all, in the interests of Western Aus-tralia, by leaving to the people themselvesthe decision as to whether they shallenter into federation or not at the presenttime. As I have already told you, nodoubt we ought to have had better terms.There is not the slightest doubt that ifwe could only have the matter over again,if we had another Convention, and if wek-new as much about it as we do now,Eastern Australia would be willing tomeet our wishes to a. larger extentthan she has done. We ought to havehad fiscal freedom for ten years, asthey had in British Columbia, and wecertainly ought to have had a transcon-tinental railway. We have to choosenow upon either entering federation orstanding out, and I will tell you oneof the reasons that actuated me in thedecision I have arrived at. Even if wewere aIble to defeat federation at thepresent time, does any one suppose wewill be ultimately able to keep it off, whenwe remember that there are more thanthree millions of people living on theEastern side of Australia with theirsentiments represented here; and whenwe -also remember the great combinationof Great Britain, whose sentiments are in

favour of federation. With those twcgreat commiunities, one consisting of 3Cor 40 millions of people in Great Britainand the other three to four millions olpeople in the Eastern colonies of A ustralia, is it likely a small number olpeople, most of them coming from thtEastern colonies, will be able to keep bacbfederation for any length of timeP

MR. MORAN: That was exactlyv the castof British Columbia. But they got thejiconcessions.

THE PREMIER: The people thenwere unanimous, as you told us the otheiday, but the people here were nolunanimous. And, after all, looking atthe subject from a farmer's point of viewI wish to say it would be very difficult tcretain the duties on food, even if we haZno federation, the desire here being kchave free-trade in regard to all mattersof produce grown in the colony. We maykeep up the duties for a little while, butwe know very well that if the presentGovernment went out to-morrow, the firstthing this House would do would be tcremove those duties.

MRt. MORAN: There is another HouseTHE PREMIER: We have had expe.

rience of them. After all, the prices hen(are governed by the prices in Londonwhether there are duties or not. Wthave duties on flour, but we do nolget a benefit in regard to price to the extentof the duty. In fact the price is unaffectedby the duty altogether. I think we shah

I have to mnake the best use we canof the sliding scale. I have often saidit is very inconvenient and cumbrousand not workable, but at the sainttime we must make the best use of iiwe can. I hope we shall be able to dcsomething to assist the agriculturists inthat direction, so as to promote thesettlement of the soil. In reward to thcBill itself I should like to say a feuwords. It is practically the Bill whichwas voted upon and approved by theelectors of the Eastern colonies ; the onlydifference being that the amendments,if any, made b 'y the Imperial Parlia-ment will be submitted here. Therwmight have been some exception to thescwords if we had not known what theImperial Parliament were going to do;but we knuow that the only amendmentsmade by the Imperial Parliament willbe those connected with the right oi

Federf ionBill [23 Mt, 1900.) eodraig

appeal to the Privy Council and theroyal prerogative. Those amendmentsare very few indeed, and therefore.need not give us mouch concern, becausethey have been consented to by all theother coloanies: they will be embodied inthe Bill, and will be available for usbefore the referendum itself is taken.We propose to take the referendum on adate to be fixed by the Government. Ofcourse, I do not wish to have the fixingof that date. I shall be very glad if bon.members will think the matter over andfix a date in this House; but I haveinserted the provision generally that thereferendumt is to be taken on a date to beprescribed by proclamation. I have no Idlesire to have the matter left in thehands of the Government, if bon.members can suggest a datc, Thequestion arises as to what rolls shall beused for this election, and who are tovote. If we are to have this referen~dumon parliamentary roll, it will be impos-sible for any additional persons to get onthe roll under tLhe new Constitution Actand the new Electoral Act within sixmonths from the present time; and Iexpect the referendumn will have to betaken very' much sooner than that,because it will have to be prior to thepio0clamation. of the Constitution inAustralia,. I should saty the referendumkought to be taken within two or threemontis from the present time. If thatbe the case, of course, the only parliameu-tary rolls available will be those in forceat the present time, which are made up tothe 15th May, 1 think.

My.. GEosoxs: There are more peoplethan those whose names appear on therolls. If the Bill is to go to the people,let the people vote.

Tnua PREMIER:- If you were to havethe new Parliamentary register, it wouldbe impossible to have any referendum forat least eight months, and I think that istoo long. It is provided that everyelector shall vote for the Bill once; thatthe whole of tht, colony shall be oneelectorate; that the poll. is to be taken onthe same day; and that every elector onthe roll, wherever he may be, whether hebe absent from the district for which heis on the roll or not, cam vote. Anelector absent from the district for whichhe is on the roll can send his vote to theassistant returning officer of the district;

and, in fact, the sme privilege will begranted to him as is already granted to avoter not living in the district butqualified to vote by proxy. It is proposedin the Bill that the electoral rolls shall bethose in force on the 23rd May. Thequestion arises, as suggested by myfriend the member for the Murray (Mr.George), as to who are to be the electorsin the referendum. That is a matter wecan discuss in a friendly manner inCommittee, for I do not suppose finyonehere has any feeling about it. I havenot the slightest feeling about it. Theword " electors," as used in our FederationEnabling Act of 1896, means " electorsfor the Legislative Assembly." Thesewere the electors who were appointed asthe people to whom the Federation Billwas to he referred, and this was providedby the Enabling Ac-t under which dele-gates were to be appointed for attendingthe Federal Convention; and when aFederation Bill came back from thatConvention, it was to be referred to theelectors of the Legislative Assembly, Inall the colonies the term "elector " meansthe samne, namely the electors of themore numerous House of the Parliament;and in the Premiers' Conference iu Mel-bourne, which has been made so much ofbY my friends opposite, and in regard towhich I am supposed to have brokenfaith, the word " electors " is used again.This paragraph, which I have so often hadthrown in mny face, says:-

The Premiers of the other colonies Are ofopinion that after the people of New SouthWales have accepted the Bill as altered, itshould be snbmitted to tho Parliaments oftheir respective colonies for referepee to theelectors.

The Premiers are also of opinion that it isdesirable that the decision of a majority of theelectors voting in each colony should be suffi-cient for the acceptance - or rejection of theBil.It is quite clear what was moeant by thepeople in the other colonies; it is quiteclear they acted in that way; and theBill was referred to the electors of theLegislative Assembly in each State. Insome colonies they made provision forbringing the electoral rolls up to date,for the purpose of the referendum; butin none of the colonies did they de-part from the Parliamentary roll; andin South Australia no provision wasmade.

Federation Bill: Second reading.

90 ederation Bill: CSEIL. eodraig

MR. kLLIwGWORnH: They dlid in Vic-Itoriat.

Tas PREMIE)R: In Victoria all theydid was to appoint a special re~gistrationcourt, to sit up to a certain date precedingthe referendum, and this court was togrant electors' rights when applied for;but those receiving electors' rights had tobe qualified under the electoral law. InVictoria a person cannot get on the rollin a mnoment. Ile has to he so long in adistrict before he becomes entitled toregistration.

MR, Vosn~ ;s You may be registeredthere up to three days of the poll.

Tan PREMIER: But the electorsmust have been resident a certain time.The question we have to consider isthis: Are we to have this referendumunder the Parliamentary roll or under a,special roll ? If under a special roll,there is no reason why we should notlegislate in that direction; lbut thereferendum cannot 'be held under a, newParliamentary roll, because we have notpower to legislate without the royalassent for extending the Electoral Act.If it be desired by some people that aroll should he made up specially for thereferendum, then the roll so made wouldhave to he thrown into the waste paperbasket after the referendum, because suchroll would not comply with the ElectoralAct, which says that no -man who has notbeen twelve months in the colony, andsix months in an electoral district, can beput on the electoral roll.

MR. Vospra: You promised that itshould be so, list session.

TEE PREMIER: I do not think so,but if I did, we may throw it over now,because we were talking long before theevent occurred. I am not much weddedto this provision in the Bill. I cannotunderstand why there is so much objec-tion to using the existing Parliamentar~yroll, for we are told that nine-tenths ofthe people of this colony are in favour offederation, and if, as is said, there is ablock vote on the goldfields in favol ir offederation, if there are 16,000 people ormore on the goldifields in favour of theBill, and.I1 do not suppose that out of the40,000 or 45,000 people there are morethan 20,000 on the roll, then why shouldnot the existing Parliamentary roll beused for the referendum? If I werearguing against the carrying of federation,

I should say the more naimes. on the rolthe better for a referendum ;but havim1regard to the spirit of the eonstitutioiwe have been acting under -all along, tha.is since the Enabling Act of 1896, 1 dinot think it was intended that any but thiParliamentary roll should be used fo.taking a popular vote on the federatioiquestion.

Mn. Gnoaon:, Why should 40,00(people on the roll vote for 175,00(people in the colonyP

MR, HAL~L: There are in Perth a larginunmber of qualified electors not on theroll.

THE PREMIER: Then why do the1not get there P W~e have heard that crjall along. I say these people do aoL tr3to get on the roll. All I wish to say novis that no colony in Australia hatdeparted from the electoral roll of th4Legislative Assembly, for takina thereferendum on the federation question.

MR. ILLINowVoaRn: Plu-s special elec.toral rights.

THE PREMIER: We have no speciaelectoral rights here. In Victoria then(are the ratepayers, and they are hpeople who haye the electoral rights. 11was arranged there that tip to a certairtime the ratepayers should see that theiinames were on the roll, and that tip to, vcertain date there should be electora,rights issued to those ratepayers wixwere qualified but were not on the rollI should say, myself, that if we had mreferendum here on the roll as it h.new, it would be a quite sufficientexpression of opinion on the question asto whether we should go into federatiosjor not. I do not think we should try tcsweep up votes all over the place. Thepeople now on the roll are those whcsent us to Parliament as representatives,and surely they are the people who oughtto decide this5 question of federation. 01course, if we could wait six monthis befo r(takig the referendum, we could get diewomen also on the roll under thie newvElectoral Act. Those persons who arenot satisfied with the plan that is inforce want some new plan, but if seit will have to be a referendum roll,and it will have nothing to do with theLegislative Assembly, and therefore wewvill have to emnbark on another caeetaltogether. I have said all I desire tesay on this occasion. I advise my -friends,

[ASSEMBLY.) Second reading.

Federatin Bill: [23 M&-Y, 1900.] eodraig

in the words of Mr. Chamberlain in histelegram to the Government here : " Wehave had a good fight, and have doneour best to protect the colony." Believingas I do that we will be able to hold ourown under federation, notwithstandingthe adverse conditions, and believing as Ido that we ought to have ha-d better termsfor this colony, and that we would havegot better terms if the people here haddesired it-but what could we do whensomne members here were voting againstit, who forgot they were West Austra-lians, and showed that their sympathieswere with people elsewhere who havenever done any-thing for us-in thesecircumstances what could we doP If wehad said "1no," we would have got whatwe wanted; but we did not get it; andnow what is the best thing to do? Evenif we are inclined, we cannot prevent thisreferendum, and in fact I do not desireto prevent it. In my opinion the bestcourse to adopt now is that, having hada good fight and having done our best,we have only one more thing to do: wehave to refer this Bill to the people, anddo our duty in explaining its provisionsto them. That I am prepared to do. Iam certainly not going to take theresponsibility of telling the people that Ithink this Bill is so had that they oughtnot to adopt it, or that I feel they are soincompetent that they cannot deal withit. I believe that in the mass of thepeople there is wisdom, and my duty willbe to explain the provisions of the Bill tothe people, and their duty will he todecide whether it is acceptable to Wes-tern Australia or not.

MR. LEAKE (Albany): It is myintention to support the second readingof this Bill, because I find that I amin favour entirely of the principles whichthe measure enunciates. The first prin-ciple of the Bill is that the draft of theCommonwealth Bill which has beenaccepted by the rest of Australia shiall biereferred to the vote of the electors 'in thiscolony. The interpretation I put on theword " electors " is "1the people"; andperhaps it will be necessary for inc tomake a few observations on that expres-sion, later on. It is with peculiar grati-fication that I read this Bill and theaccompanying correspondence, because Ifind that the views that I have personallyadvocated in this House and in mny

capacity as president of the FederalLeague, with the support of the FederalLeague, are embodied in the measue.The Bill also provides that the deter-mination of the country shall be gatheredfrom. a majority vote. There is noattempt, I am glad to see, to fix anystatutory minority; but, true to prin-ciples which have been laid down by theneighbouring colonies, we find a baremajority vote is to prevail with regardto the acceptance or rejectiou of themeasure. Of course I am aware thatthis is in consonance with thie agreementcome to at the Premiers' Conference inFebruary of last year. I was for amoment puzzled, in hearing the righthon. gentleman move the second -readingof the Bill, as to whether this was Mayof 1900 or May of 1898; - but, however,I am pleased to think that the sentimentswhich he has this evening expressed, inMay of 1900, are more in keeping withthose of May 1898 than with those ofthe internediate period, when wve found*-that the right hon. gentleman had, forvarious reasons unknown to the generalpublic, changed his views on this impor-tant question several timaes. There is noneed to trace the history of the federalmoveiment; and although we only nowhave proposed to us what should havebeen proposed last session, we mustaccept what we have with a goodgrace; and I hope, by our unitedefforts, we shall accomplish the endwe all have in view, that is to bringabout a federation which will includethe colony of Western Australia aswvell as the other colonies of the group.The only regret, perhaps, which may beproperly expressed is that we may nowhave to do in a hurryv that which oughtto have been done with greater deli era-tion. Had this mneasure, the principlesof which were supported by myself andmembers ob this side of the House, beenintroduced last session, we should havtebeen saved a great dleal of anxiety andperhaps a considerable amiount of risk.I was pleased to hear the right hon.gentleman aver that it was his intentionto vote for the acceptance of the Corn-mnonwealth Bill, when the referTendum. istaken; but I remark that there was anabsence of any pledge on his part to bindhis colleagues in the same direction. Itwould be far mare grati~ing, and there

Federation Bill: Second reading.

92 Federation Bill: [ASSEMBLY.] Second reading.

would be greater assurance of success,if not only the right hion, gentleman'apersonal efforts were to be thrown intothe scale, but also that he could commandthe support of his colleagues. Perhaps1 am anticipating what those lion. gentle-men will say; but I do hope, and this weare entitled to expect as an. assurance ofgood faith from the Ministerial side, thatthe whole weight of the Ministry as abody will be thrown into the federalscale, not only during the debate in thisHouse, but also when the matter goesbefore the people.

THE Punmn: I promised that, if wegot the terms; hut I did not promise itotherwise.

Ma. LEARE: That justifies me ingiving utterance to the suspicion whichwas in my mind, and I fear, therefore,that the right hon. gentleman speaksonly for himself as an individual, andnot for the Ministry as a, body.

THE Panviun: It is not a partyquestion.

MnR. JaEAKE: When a Bill Ekec thisis brought into Parliament, dealing witha, matter which has agitated the publicm-ind for months, perhaps5 for years, weexpect that as the Ministerial stamp ison this Bill it shall have the Minis-terial support outside; that Ministerialexertions shall be used to give effect tothe object of this Bill which is broughtin by Ministers. It is true, as wasinterjected, that the right lion. gentle-man's colleagues would have supportedthe Bill if he could have secured certainamnendmients. Those amendments havenot been obtained, it is true. Thoseamneunents were declared by miost ofhis colleagues to have been. essential, lastsession. Why are they not essentialto-day ? They are abandoned, and Ithink for a good reason, because some ofthemn did not pass Parliament. In factParliment, as a body, did not approveof any of those amendments.

TH[E PREMIER: This House did.Mn. LEAXE: Yes; but when the

Par~liamnont, as constituted, did not passthe amendments which were proposed,some greater effort than has been madeshould have been made to secure adefinite and decided opinion upon theefficacy or othierwise of those amnend-muents. They were proposed, it is true,

ia complicated form last session; but

in 1897, when the draft Bill which hatbeen passed by the Adelaide Con ventic'was before this House, curiously enoug.neither any of those so-called essenti;amendments nor any other realy iinporant amendments were proposed to thChainber, either by the Ministry or Iany other member in the House.

THE PREMIER: There was, then on]about one day's time to look througthat.

Mn. LEAKE: Oh, more than that,think. I was reading up the mattito-day, and if I remember rightlytook three or four days to decide thquestion.

THE PREMIER: We did not k-now ofthen.

Mn. LEAKE: At any rate, thoiso-called essential amendments of the la:isession were not thought of in 1897, n(were they thought of at any momexduring the sitting of the Convention, anthey do not appear to have been thougiof at the Premiers' Conference.

MR. MORANi: The Bill was not thEthe same.

,Tnu PREmIER:- They were thoughtin Melbourne, surely.

Ma. LEAKS: They do not appear1have been considered at the PremierConference.

THE PREInER: Oh, Yes. You do u,know of that. I do. I brought theup there, but I could not get theconeded.

Mn. LEAXE:. Then it is a very f unrthling we did not hear more about them

THE PnEMIRs: There was no reportthe Conference.

M-R. LEAKE: Was, the rafiwFbrought up?

Tnnr PREmIER: Yes.Mr. VesPER: To which Premier

Conference axe you referring iMa. LEAXE: To that held in Fe:

ruary of last year.DIE PREMIRs: The fact that ti

amendments were brought up lias betacknowledged by the other Premiers.

MR. LEAXE : If I may formopinion frein the public utterances of t]other Pr&miers, I will venture to douwhether these matters were thoroughdiscussed, or at any rate discussed insincerity, at that conference. At.events, we heard nothing about them tlast year, when they were brought up

4

Fedeatin Btt: [23MAY 190.] Second reading. 93

a. somewhat late hour before the Parlia-mentary Joint Committee; and it will beinteresting to note how often so mnuchrespect will be paid to the opinions of a,select committee as appears to have beenpaid by the Ministry to the opinions ofthe commnittee that sat last year. Wehave had this select committee hurled atus from every possible direction. It isnever the opinion of Parliament, it is notthe opinion of the Ministry, but it isalways the opinion of the select corn-mnttee.

THE PREMIER: We had nothing elseto go on.

Mn. LEAXE:- Even in the words ofthe Speech, we read:- "It has not beenfound possible to obtain the amendmentssuggested by the Joint ParliamentaryCommittee"; and the Joint Parliamnen-tary Committee seems in this particularinstance to have assumed an importancewhich has never been accorded to anyother joint select committee,

M.KoRAN: Do not forget this Houseapproved. the committee's report.

MR. LEAKE:. And after alt, as far asthis Assembly is concerned, there wereonly five-I think only four, really-ofthe members sitting on that select comn-mittee who were in favour of thoseamendments. I have never before heardof a Ministry which was bound by theopinions of four members of the LowerHouse, but this Government seems tohave thought it necessary to be so boundon this occasion.

Mn: MORAN:- This House adoptedthose amiendments afterwards, and theythen became Parliament's amiendments.

MRt. LEA XE: No), they did not; theyonly became the Assembly's amend-ments.

MR. MORAN: Well, that is the biggestend of Parliaunent.

Mn. LEAKE:, They were adopted bythis House, but not until after a protestfrom members who were in favour offederation under the Bill which has nowbeen accepted; and we, with the otherfederalists in this colony, were forced toaccept those amendments, because if wehad. not supported them we should havelost the Bill altogether, and it was a caseof taking half a loaf instead of no bread.But those amendments, when they wventup to the Council, although they hadupon them the Ministerial stamp, were

not supported as they should have been,either by the Ministry or by the membersof the select committee who had ap-

proved them in select committee; becausethose very amendments were rejected inthe Council; and the question whichu]ltimately came before the Council, andwhich the Premier said was rejectedbecause I with others entered into aconspiracy or arrangement to shut thedoor and cause them to be lost-the

Iamendment which was lost in the Councilwas niot identical with the amendments

iwhich were passed by this Assembly, butwas a proposal to submit to a referendum

Ia, Bill which included those amendments,Iand also to suggest another conference ofPremiers;i and at that moment we were,by approving a Bill with those amend-ments, proposing something which weknew we coiild not get, in addition to

Isomething whichi nobody had demanded,and which apparently this House did notwant.

MR. MoRAN:- We know now we couldhave got them.

Mn. TiNAXE: We could. have got*nothing of the kind.

THE PREMIER: We very nearly gotthem, anyhow.

MR. LEA RE : But there are no recordsof Parliament to show it, and there are

*no public papers to show it; and if we*may judge of the tone of public opinionas- expressed by the public men ofthe other colonies, we shall find theyrecognised that, after a certain date-after the Bill had been accepted by NewSouth Wales-it was not only impossiblebut improper to suggest any amendments,more especially the amendments whichhad been advocated in Western Aus-tralia.

Mn. MORAN:- They are accepting themnow.

Mn. LEAXE; And those amendments* ere not the amendments of Parliament,but merely the suggestions of a Ministry,

Iand that Ministry, we know perfectly1well, was itself divided. upon the subject.

THE PREMIER: The Joint Select Com-mittee's report is here on the iecords: itis the only thing we have on the records.

Mn. IjEAKE: Curiously enough-Ithought I had pointed it out- the mem-bers of the select committee themselvesdid not support the amendments whenthese were brought before the Council.

Federation Bill. [23 MAY, 1900.]

94 Federation Bill:[ASM Y.Seodraig

That is abundantly proved by a referenceto the records. As the right hon. gentle-man himself admits, the efforts whichwere wade without the mnandate of Par-liamient were unsuccessful, anid theyfailed, not only with the Premiers of theother colonies, but also with the homeauthorities.

MR. MORAN:- No.MR. [FAKE: Oh, pardon me: they

have failed with the home authorities.THE PREmiER: The home authorities

favoured them.Mu. LEAKE:- I will read the para-

graph in a. moment. My statement isthat the attempts to secure those amend-mnents failed, not only with the Premiers,but with the home authorities ; and thatwas the very thing which we, on this sideof the House, predicted would happen,and it has happened. *We have neverdeclared that we were not in favour ofthose amendments as amendments; hutwe opposed them as. being impossible, andsaid that even to suggest those amend-ments was to delay the acceptance of theCommonwealth Bill, and to 'keep thiscolony out of the federation as an originudstate.

MR. MORAN: You said the peopl6 didnot want them.

Mn. LEAKE: That was what wefeared; that was what we realised; andour fears were justified, and the posi-tion we took utp last year has been vindi-cated. Had the amendments been askedfor by the pr-oper authorities at theproper time and place, I believe theywould not only have received the approvalof this House, but would, if proposed atthe Convention, have been accepted, orwould subsequently have been favourablyreceived at the Premiers' Conference.We must remember the Premiers' Con-ference finally altered the draft Bill inorder that a referendum might be taken ineach individual colony, and I say it wasidle to suppose that, after the Bill hadbeen referred to and accepted by any onecolony, it could be altered or amended tosuit the convenience of any Ministry orany section of the people.

MR. MOIRAN: And yet it is now beingaltered.

THE PREMIER: The attempt mighthave been made, even if it had notsucceeded,

MR, LEA HE: Personally, I do nchesitate to say I think the amendmentwere useless, were unnecessary.

MR. MORAN : You said so.MaP. LEAKE: -I say so still. I bav

always been in favour of the Bill whichas been accepted by the other colonie:and I do not propose to retract a wordhave said on that subject.

Mn. MORAN: Hear, hear. Thatmnuch the easier way.

THE PREMIER: You did not want tconserve the interests of your own couxtry for the five years.-

MR. TiEAKE: Oh! That, to say thleast of it, is stupid. However, I iraabout to read what Mr. C hamberlain sayin a cablegram which he transmitted tHis Excellency on the 27th April, 190(and it is so important that I intend tread it all. I am reading from a papEwhich includes the instructions to MiParker.

THE PREMILE:. You should read thedated the 5th April, too.

Mnt. LEAKE: And amtongst othefthings in the instructions to Mr. Parkewe mutst not forget he was directed turge that the views of the Parliament cthis colony in regard to the amendmentrecommended by the Joint ParliamenbarCommittee of the Legislature should tcarefully considered. Now, we kno'perfectly well that Parliam ent never diexpress an opinion on those amendment:except by rejecting them.

THE Paxabitn: Yes; I think that wea mistake. I also perceived that error ithe instructions, which must have arisefrom hurry.

MR. LEAKE: That being so, I inot labour the point.

THtE Pnman: It ought not to hasread "1Parliament." Does it occt;towards the end of the documentP

MR. LEAKE: No; it is near ttbeginning. The telegram of the 27tApril reads thus:;

Referring to my telegram of ApriL,5. 1*Bvenders of the federating colonies have,you are probably a~ware, declared that thehave no authority to accept any amendmentthe Bill, and have abhorrence to give aminstructions to delegates with regard to nisuggestion.

ME. MORAN: The abhorrence has diiappeared now.

Secondreading.[ASSEMBLY,]

Fedeatin Bll: [23Mxr 190.] Second reading. 95

MR. LEAK H: The telegram proceedsUnder these circumstances, I: cannot press

the matter further, and I would now urgeyour responsible advisers to consider earnestlywhether, in the best interests of the colony aswell as of Australia, they should not make aresolute effort to bring the colony into federa-tion at Once.

Unless Western Australia joins as an origi-nal State, it can only enter on the condition ofcomiplete intereoloniafree-trade. The tempo-rary protection offered by Clause 05 will,therefore, be lost; and lookcing to the presentpopulation of the colony, difficulty may alsobe experienced in securing representation aslarge as it would receive as n Original State,and which would enable the colony to secureadequate protection for all its interests in theFederal Parliament.

Tan Pnnraim: That is a matter ofopinion: I do uot agree with the state-ment.

MRs. LEAIE : The telegram proceeds:Your responsible advisers will a~lso, of course,

take into consideration the effect of the agita-tion by the federal party, especially on thegoldfields, if Western Australia does not enteras an original State.

It seems to me, under the circumstances, ofthe utimost importance to the future of West-ern Australia to join at once; anti as yourresponsible advisers have done their best tosecure the modifications desired by Parliament,I would urge them to take an early opportu-nity of summoning Parliament, and laying theposition fully before it, with a view to neces-sary action for ascertaining the wishes of thepeople as to entering federation.

It they are agreeable to this course, a clausewill be inserted in the Hill providing thatWestern Australia may enter as an originalState, if the people bare intimated their desireto be included before the issue of Her Majesty'sproelantion.

Now that, Curiously enough, covers neaxlyall the grounds for which federalists bothinside the House and outside have con-tended ; and I maintain that by the resultof our efforts we are justified, for it showswe were not captious in our opposition tothe Ministerial tactics, hut that the cir-cumstances fuily justified everything wedid. However, my province this eveningis not to upbraid anybody, nor' do I desireto take any unnecessary or exaggeratedcredit for anything whichi the FederalLeague, or the federalists generally, havedone in the colony. But we certainly dorejoice at our success, and we intend tohelp to obtain the referendum. in as com-

pleate and comprehensive a form as pos-sible. [Mr. VoSPra: Rear, hear.] Werejoice to think that this is not a party

question; and I have always declared itwas not at party question, though I knowI was not believed. It was believed thatI intended to make this a party question;but I say, if it was made a party ques-tion, that was dlone by members on theother (Government) side of the House.

THE: PununaR: All Opposition mem-hers voted with you.

MR. LEAKE: Of course they did. Icannot be blamed if I happen to besupported by all the intelligence in Par-liamient.

THE PREMIER: What difference wouldit have made if you 1uad made it a, partyquestion ?

Mn. LEAKE : I do not suppose itwould have made any difference.

TuR PREMIER: You -would not havehad any more votes.

Mu. LEAKE:- We have it on theauthority of the right hon. gentlemanhimself that it was practically a partyquestion.

Thng PREMIER: Yes; you thought youwould gain. a few votes by our not makcingit a party question.

Mn. LEAiE:- Memrbers on the otherside are entitled to their opinions, and itreally does not matter mnuch to me whetherthey think I have made it a party ques-tion or not. The question is big enoughto engage public thought outside thisOhavnsber, and I am prepared to be guidedby what the public think of it. I agreewith the Premier that it requires a. greatdeal of self-control and stamina, to goagainst the stream, and it is certainly

*rather astounding to find that he has nothad enough stamina to stemn the currentof popular oInion1 upon this occasion. Iam rather gla of it. I ani glad to findhis stainba and his sell-control were tooweak to resist the pressure brought tobear upon him.

THE PREMiER: Are you sure you aregenuine in that opinion?

MR. LEAKE: I am always genuine.THiE Pnsauxn: It is; rather ab dis-

appointment, is it not?~*MR. LEAKE:- Although the Premiermay be p roud of the abuse he has received,yet I ani perfectly certain we federalistswho sit in Opposition are glad to knowthat , at the last moment, he has awakenedto the exigencies and the necessities ofthe occasion, and has thought fit to submitthis important measure to a referendum,

Pederation Bi1Z - [23 MAY, 1900.)

96 Federation Bill: ASML. eodraig

a. medium which, it appears, he does notlike, which he avers is unknown to him,but which, curiously enough, he has pro-posed with regard to the question ofpayment of members. That was promised,I believe, during last session.

Tan PREMIER: That will not be a.complex Bill, like this.

MR. IaEAXE: It may not be a com-plex measure, but certainly it will beeasier to understand than this one, becauseI understood the Premier himself to sayhe did not think one in a. hundred under-stood federation.

THE PREMIE: I am certain of that.MR. LEAKE: Well, your argument

rather falls to. the ground there, does itnot ?

THE PREMIER: The question of pay-mnent of members is a very different thingfrom this complex Bill.

MRt. VospEx: The Premier's objectionwas to the referendum itself, not to theBill.

MEt LEAKE: Yes.THn PREMIER: You said the referen-

dum was an exotic.MR. LEAKE: I, and one or two

others, were taunted with the remarkthat certain delegates at the Conventionsdid not fight for certain matters. Well,I dispute that altogether: I say, whenmatters came up for discussion, we tooka fair part in the discussion. It is true,we did not make a great many setspeeches on the different phases ofthe Bill, but we took very good caretu discuss matters withi other members.It was admitted on all sides that therewas too much talk at that Convention, asoften happens in other assemblies, andI might almost accuse the right hon.gentleman himself not only of talking,but of talking too much. We did notventure, as members of the Convention,to intrude ostentatiously our opinion asto the effect of federation upon the-tradeand navigation of the Murray and UpperDarling; we did not care to makespeeches on subjects of that kind; butwhen the occasion arose we expressed ourviews. I assert, without fear of contra-diction, that if blame is to be attached tous, it is also to be attached to the righthon. gentleman himself. He did notthink fit to consult his colleagues whenat the Convention, and we never knewwhat the right hon. gentleman was going

to do with regard to any of thosimportant questions. That will be showby the fact that when the division be]raiig, we never voted as a body. Thsame remark applies, of course, to all thcolonies. We went there to express ouown individual opinions, and not to votas a compact band in favour only cmatters affecting Western Australia.' Wwere there to attempt to frame a constitution for the whole of the colonies, an,a great deal of the work of the Conventiowas done by select committees. T an,the member for East Perth (Mr. Jameswere on the Judicial Committee, an,we helped to frame those clauses. ThPremier was on the Finance Oommitteiand I ask members to bear in mind thathe greatest discussion took place on thlinancial clauses of the Bill. Is it to bwondered at that the right hon. gentleman was in a better position than othedelegates to discuss the financial conditions and to explain the financial position of this colony, owing to his positioias Treasurer? T do not think it Igenerous, to say the least of it, tassert that the delegates at the Convention did not take part in the discussionEI should like to combat one or two arguments that were made use of this eveningwheu it was pointed out that we wernow a sovereign State. Of course, whe:we enter federation we shall not besovereign State to the full extent that ware now, but we can deal with manmatters with which we now deal, andunderstood the Premier to lay greastress on the fact that as a sovereigiState we can now deal with our land, thmillion square miles of territory whiclthis colony possesses. I need hardiremind lion, members that we can dealwith our land under the Federal Bill.

MR. MORAN: Not exclusively: itabsolutely taxable.

MR. LEAKE : We can deal with oulands, our mines, and our railways.

MR. MORAN: They can tax them all.Mit. LEAKE: We may now say w,

are a sovereign State with sovereigpower except to defend ourselves, an4that is one point, at any rate, which wshould never cease to regard in considerlag this question of federation. I andelighted to think that, in the opinion othe Premier, we can hold our own whethewe enter federation or stand out of it

Second reading.[ASSEMBLY.]

Fedeatin Bll: [23MAY 190.] Second reading. 97

That has always been my contention, andI should be sorry to think we could nothold our own. It is true, as has beenpointed out, that we cannot raise moneyby the customs, but we may participatein the customs revenue. Although theCommonwealth collect. the castoms, theyare not entitled to spend it all, but weare entitled to get someofibakAlthough the Premnier has declared thatlie is in favour of the Commonwealth Billand will vote for it, he throws out afairly strong hint to his supporters andadmirers in this House that they are atliberty to oppose it, and he would not besorry if they did so.

THE PannnsR: Who said that?Ma. ]IEAXE: Although it is true we

shall in one sense he a subordinate State,yet we should never forget that we shallbe in no worse a, position than our neigh-bours, The Federal Bill does not imposeany obligations upon Western Australiawhich are not borne by the other Aus-tnralian States.

MR. MORAne: There you are wrong.Ma. LEAKE:- Although that state-

ment is made by the hon. member, I amnot convinced by it. We mnay be underdisabilities. Of coure, if we federatevwegive tip certain rights. But althoughthose rights will not be administered byourselves, they will be administered forus, and -we, through our representatives,shall have a voice in that administration.I say that therein we are in the samieposition as the other States of the federa-tion. As to the statement that thereason -we did not succeed with theamendments was that we were not United,I think I have explained that, had thoseamendments been suggested at the propertime and in the proper place, we should,I dare say, have been in a. position torender that assistance which the Govern-ment subsequently expected from us.But let ns not forget that all the timethose amendments were being asked forfrom Parliament, and suggested by thePreniier, the right bon. gentleman's ownMinisters would not support them. Therehas been a split in the Cabinet over thismatter for the past eighteen months, andthere is one still.

MR. MORAN: It is a. non-party ques-tion.

MR. LEAKE:- I sam only saying that,curiously enough, that party is split up.

I cannot understand that, and of courseMinisters will subsequently explain it. Imust really repudiate the suggestion thatneither I nor my federal friends willtrust the country with the managementof the tariff for five years. I have neversaid anything which would bear thatconstruction, and I go so far as to saythat if it were possible to obtain that five-years tariff and still. enter federation, Iwould, although personally not in favourof it, waive my objection, in order thatthere should be no obstacles to our joiningfederation. That has been the positiontaken up by the Federal League through-out, but we maintained that we would notfor one moment imperil our joining thefederation as an original'State, and con-sequently we refused to discuss amend-ments which we knew we could not byany possibility obtain. The lion, member(Mr, Moran) has already delivered onevery strong anti-federal speech this ses-sion, and I dare say that when ho comesto speak on the second reading of the Billhe will give another. I hope that whenhe does speak I shall attend with greatcare to what he says. It was not onlythe bon. member, but also the Premier,who twitted us with having advocated theBill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the13111, and we are now jeered at because itis proposed by the Imperial Parliamentto make an alteration in the Bill.

Mit. Mosus: Several alterations.YR. LEAKE: I maintain that for all

practical purposes we are still advocatingand are going to obtain the Bill, thewhole Bill, and nothing but the Bill-

MR. MORAN: Not at all.MR. IiEAKE: Let me finish my sen-

tence, do. We are going to obtain theBill, the whole Bill, and nothing but theBill which the colonies will have, and Weask for nothing more than that. Tospeak of the alterations with regard toappeal to the Privy Council as being vitalto federation is absurd, for they arenothing of the kind. The question ofappeal to the Privy Council was neverdiscussed in thisHouse. It is true it wasdiscussed at the Convention, and I votedfor the cluses as they stand in the Bill,but I do not object to the appeal to thePrivy Council, and if the amendment ismade by the Imperial authority, I shallcheerfully accept that amendment, becauseI find that the other colonies are going

[23 MAY, 1960.]Federation Bill:

98 Fedoration Bill: (ASE BI.Seodrdi.

to accept it, and without a referendum,too. I am perfectly willing to respectthe opinion and the feelings of theImperial authorities with regard to theretention of the right of appeal. Ofcourse the hon, member (Mr. Moran)knows full well that this is not a vitalquestion, and he is only using badinage.His desire to inter~ject and interrupt leadshim to make the remarks he does. Atany rate, if there is a referendum, therewill be no necessity to have a referendumhere on the point, because provision is orwill be made in this Bill to accept itsubject to the amendment. Therefore,we need not bother as to the vitality orotherwise of the amendment. That is atrouble which has to be faced by ourneighbours, and, if there is a referendumat alt, it will have to be in the othercolonies. With regard to the Bill itself,the only objection I have to it is that theexisting roll-and when I speak of theexisting roll, I mean the roll existingat the present moment-is not wideenough , and if the question is to bereferred to anybody, it should be referrednot only to the electors who are on theroll, but every other person who is entitledat the present moment to become anelector, and to have his name placed 011

the roll. Nor can I see any greatdifficulty in accomplishing that object,because if, in addition to permittingthose whose names are on the roll tovote, we grant to everybody who canobtain it, and should obtain it onapplication, an electoral right, there is noreason -why we should not have a fulland most comprehensive election on thismeasure, and that, too, without anyunnecessary delay. Of course I do notpropose to explain in full detail how Iwould carry out my suggestion, buthaving made the suggestion, it is onlyright I should say something about it,and I firmldy believe this question ofelectoral rights is little better than amatter of drafting. If the people arepermitted to obtain electoral rights, theyshould, if their names are not on theroll, be permitted to record their votes onthe production of such electoral rights.And I would say these electoral rightsshould not be given unless the partiesapplying for them can satisfy theauthorities they have been residents fora certain term, and in other respects are

qualified not only to get on the rolbut to vote. It is idle to suppose tha;the roll which exist at the presenmoment fairly represents the qualifiecelectors of the colony ; and in a, bifmatter of this kind we should all ortevery facility, and give to those who havirecently been struck off the roll ever,assistance to get back again so as to hiable to vote upon this question.

ME. DOHERTY. Why do you not havithe same system for Parliame ntar:elections P

Mn. LEAXE: I will go so far as tbsupport it in regard to Parliamentarielections; but the exigencies of th;occasion are not so great at a Parlia.mentary election as they are at th,present moment. I take it we desire bget as full an expression of opinion fronthe people of this colony as possible, au(if we want to ascertain the will of th,people, we must not confine the referendun to the small number of electors apresent on the roll. If permitted to d,so, I shall be perfectly prepared, wheithis Bill is in Cjnmittee, to assist tbPremnier in framing clauses which wilmeet this question, provided he will assento the suggestiou I make. I throw thiout as much for the sake of argument. aanything else. I hope hon. members wilsee it is reasonable, and I notice from threports that the matter h as been suggesteiin another place. If that be so, surelif the majority of Parliament desire tsee my suggestion adopted, we haysufficient, drafting capabilities in thcity to carry out our views and tembody them in the Bili. I do nopropose to reply at length to thcriticism of the bon. member who move-the Address-in-reply; but great streswas laid by him on the fact that certai:colonies3 in British North America oztamned terms. If I remember rightly, thposition of those colonies with regard tthe Canadian federation, and ours witregard to the proposed Australian federation, are not analogous; that those termwere offered to them to go into thfederation of Canada, after the federatie:was formed. Here we are striving to gcin as an original State, and time hereof the essence of the proceeding, for if Vdo not go in under the Bill, we cannot gin as an original State. Of course -wcan stand out, and trust to making th

[A*SSEM13LY.] Second reading.

Fedeatio Bil. [4 MA, 190.] Railways and Fraud.

best of a " deal " with the federalauthority afterwards; but I for one amdeadly opposed to that, and will strainevery nerve in resisting such a suggestion.I think it would be infinitely to ouradvantage to accept the terms which theBill offers to us to enter as an originalState, in preference to standing out withthe hope of getting better terms.

MR. MORAN:- You cannot do worse.Mx. LEAKE: I cannot 'hope to convert

the hon. member; but in expressing myviews, I know I am expressing the viewsof the majority of federalists in and outof the House. It is my intention tosupport the second reading of the Bill,and I do so with considerable pleasure.The Premier has adopted the only coursewhich was open to him, after the variedexperience of the past few months; thatis in at last proposing to refer this Bill,and to give to the citizens of WesternAustralia the same privileges and torecognise the same constitutional rightswhicil are enjoyed by their fellow citizensin the neighbouring colonies.

Mn. RASON (South Murchison): Ibeg to move the adjournment of thedebate.

Motion for adjournment put andpassed.

ADJOURNMENT.The House adjourned at 21 minutes

past 10 o'clock, until the next dlay.

:gis1atibe E9hUnfd,Thursday, 24th May, 1900.

Eficiait. Schools (a coarectio%)-Question, Fraud(aleje) aat Railway Deptemt-EeturmodrdHigh School attendaaces-Addresa-in-

Reply: Preseutatioul-Electors omi ParlinamnutaryRoll-Gamie Act Amendment Bi, discharge oforder-Adjoarneut.

THE PRESIDENT took the chair at4-30 o'clock, p.m.

PRAYERS.

EFFICIENT SCHOOLS (A CORRECTION).

Tnx& COLONIAL SECRETARY: Aclerical error occurred in the reply to thequestion asked by Mr. B. S. Haynesyesterday. The name of the Scots Col-lege was omitted from the list of schoolswhich have applied to be consideredefficient or secondary. It is only fightthat I should make this correction asearly as possible; although it could begathered from the last paragraph of myreply that the Scots College should havebeen included.

How. R. S. H.AYNES: Then the replywill read: "1It is hoped that the ScotsCollege and the Christian Brothers' Col-lege," etc.

THEs COLONIAL SECRETARY: Imay add that it niay be thought theseexaminations should have taken place bythis time; but the inspetors have beenvery busy j ust now, andthe examinationsfor the scholarships do not come on again

Iuntil October, therefore no school wil] beaffected.

QUESTION-FRAUD (ALLEGED) AGAINSTRAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

HoN. C. SOMMERS asked the ColonialSecretary : i, Whether the attention ofthe Government bee been called to anarticle appearing in the Stm news-paper, published in Kalgoorlie on the 6thMay, wherein serious fraud was, it wasaalleged, committed by the Perth Ice Com-pany against the Railway Department;z, If so, have any steps been taken by theGoversneat to disprove the allegationscontained in the said article; 3, And, ifso, what steps.

TEn COLONIAL SECRETARYreplied :-L, Yes; 2, Investigation was atonce begun and has not yet been corn-

Federation Bill. [24 MAY, 1900.]