1956 [COL'NCII.. I

Lately the management appear to have been friends of thle Opposition, When I was on the catering for tourist traffic, which I regard as North-West coast last year, were the most of little or no use to the service from the enthusiastic supporters of the State Ship- financial aspect. I do not know either that inug Service that I ever heard; so that the the traffic is a good advertising agency for work will be able to go forward with the the State. It takes the vessels off the coast unaiious support of a]ll hon. members. just at the hottest period of the year, when lDivision put and passed. they are needed for the convenience of our own people. T hope the 'Minister controlling Divisions - State Sawmaills, £872,886; the service will go into that question closely, W~yndham Freezing, Conning and Mafot - and determine whether the method is good or port Wforks, t 24 0,OO-agreed to. bad, and whether it should be continued. Personally I see no benefit accruing to the This concluded the Estimates of the Tra.d- service from the tourist traffic. Again, I ing Concer-ns for the year. noticed recently that the general manager has Resolutions reported. adopted the peculiar idea of advertising the service by turning a vessel into a inzz hall House adjourned at 11.35 p.m. at Frenmantle. I do not know the reason for that step, unless it is publicity. In any ease, I doa not agree with it. Does the 'Minister krnow the extra cost entailed inl supplying foodstuffs and catering for the jazz proceed- ings recently held onl the "Koolinda" at Frm- mantle? Further, does hie know what was taken away from the boat by wayno souvenirs? The Mfinister for 'Mines: T admit I have no information on that point. Mr. COVERLEY: I am not concerned ILegislative (Council, about what was souvenired, but about wvhat .Thursday, 161h Aovenmber, 1933. was not souvenired. I wish the visitors had souvenired the general manager, Ittt tun- fortunately they left him behind. I hopie PAGE Question : Road District. Act, consolidation.. 1050 the Treasurer will take into consideration the Motion: Bees Act, to disaluow regulation . .. 1957 question of giving us another boat for the Bills: Forests Act Amendment, SR., Passed 1957 Constitution Acts Amendment, 2R. .. 1057 North-West. Mletropolitan Whole Milk Act Amendment, As' semblys. message ...... 1072 Hon. P. COLLIER: On the main point raised by the hon. member, an- other ship for the North-West, the Gov'- errinient have not yet hlad time to conl- The PRESIDENT took the Chair at 4.30 sides' the matter. I do believe, though, that p1,1.la ead prayers. we could more efficiently meet the require- ments with the existing ships if another service were there to co-operate. [ ail QUESTION-ROAD DISTRICTS ACT, g-lad that the "Koolinda" has functioned CONSOLIDATION. inter'- effec'tivelY. If her trips to Singapore Hon. J1. CORNELL asked the Chief See- fere in any' way wvith the purpose for whieh reta ry: 1, Blas the consolidation of the Rouul the ship was secured in the first plate, I shall Districts Act been completed and printed? also bring that before the Minister. r look 2, If so, when will copies be made available upon the "Koolinda" as my own, becauseI to road boards throughout the State9 arranged for the purchase and finance while in Melbourne. I rerret that she has dec- The CHIEF SECRETARY replied: 1 generated into a jazz hall. That matter, too, and] 2. The consolidation is completed, but W~ill have to be considered. I an quite slime it is not desirable to print it while there is that if an opportunityv presents itself to Hlad anl amndnment before Parliament which, if the money to finance another ship. thiat pro- p~assed, should be incorporated in the con- posal will be unanimously endorsed by the solidation (Road Districts Act Amendment members of this Chamber, because our Act, 1933, No. 2). [16 Novmns; 1933.1 195715

MOTION-BEES ACT. chanced to be in this State at the time, aw'l he also was consulted in this matter and To Disallow Regulation. confirmed the New Zealand authorities. It Debate resumed from the previous day oin was, therefore, decided to reduce the radius the following motion by Hon. V. Hamers- to three miles and I am advised that the bee- ley (East). keepers in the State are not incurring any That the regulation amending Regulation (6 greater risk of the introduction of diseae of the regulations made under the Bees Act, through the reduction of the radius from 1930, as published ii' the Governnment Ga-tte fire to three amiles. I desire to draw mem- on the 20th October, 1933, and laid on the Table of the House on the 24th October, 1933, bars' attention to the fact that the amend- he and is hereby disallowed. ment of this regulation does not affect the movement of bees, hone1y, etc., within the THE CHIEF SECRETARY illon. 1. 'I1 State, for neither the Act nor the regulations Drew-Central) [4-35]: The amendment to at present in force prevent the movement of Regulation 6 under the Bees Act applies hives, unless soine portion of the State has only to bees, hives, honey or beekeepers' been proclaimed an infected area under appliances imported into the State, and has Regulation 6 of the Act. I have given the nothing to do with those within the State. history of the regulation. It was initiated The necessity for the amendment to the as a result of a resolution passed at a eon- regulation arose as a result of a conference erenee of Ministers for Agriculture held in of Ministers for Agriculture, held in Syd- Sydney last Ifay, and it was not adopted ney in May, 1933, when the following reso- until the matter had been fully investigated. lution was passed- Mr. Hamersley has given insufficient reasons That the Western Australian Department of why the regulation should be disallowed, Agriculture should be asked to consider the and I trust the motion will not be agreed to. question of reducing the radius prescribed in On motion by Hon. C. F. Baxter, debate the interstate Certificate from 5 to 2% Further, in view of th fact that it ismiles. de- adjourned. sirable to have uniform regulations covering interstate trade, it was decided to ask the Queensland Department to consider thle ad- BILL-FORESTS ACT AMENDMENT. visability of adopting certificates similar to those which have proved so satisfactory in Bill read a third time and passed. Western Australia, but including the reduc- tion in radius. Before giving effect to this resolution, BILLr-CONSTITUTION ACTS and following on correspondence with the AMENDMENT. Ministers for Agriculture in New South Wales and South Australia, it was decided Second Reading. to refer the matter to an independent auth- Debate resumed from the previous day. ority, and the Department of Agriculture, of Wellington, New Zealand, was suggested. THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. J. M. The Department of Agriculture in South Drew-Central) [4.40]:- The main purpose of this Bill is to indemnify a Tnembc-r of Australia intimated that if the New Zealand Parliament against a possible infringemenit authorities ruled that a radius of five miles of the Constitution Act, which may havs* was necessary, then they would not voice been involved in his accepting a position any further protest. In response to the in- on the Lotteries. Commission, .9npointed quiry, the Director General of Agriculture, uinder legislation passed last year. 'When Wellington, replied hy letter on the 21st the Lotteries (Control) Bill was befora2 the July, 1933, and concluded by saying- legislature last year, it. wa no secret that, The provision to enforce a distance between because of their special qualifications for clean and diseased apiaries to ensure only the the post, two members of Paliarnent product fronm clean aipiaries is sound in prin- would he chosen for a place on the coni- ciple, and should have the effect of stimulating a general clearing of disease in the States de - mission, and provision was originally made sirous of trading with you. However, it is the in the Bill with the object of enahling considered opinion of this Department that the them to take tip the duties without incur- radius could be Safely reduced to three miles. ring any liability uinder the Constitution Another expert, 'Mr. Currie, of the Coun- Act. The commnission was to he a Cor- cil for Scientific and Industrial Research, porate body: no portion of the revsae it IICOUNCI a.

was to handle would come from the Crown. on a job printing business in Perth, g-ave Eventually the Government were atis- a quote to a Government body then known fled that the clause designed t(. protect uis the Bureau of Agriculture. The quote members of Parliament was unnecessary, was for the production of a monthly jour- and it was removed in snoth;3r place. nal which that body issued. The Bureaui When the Bill came to this Houise, the of Agriculture was administering funds omi indemnifying clause-owing to somuc ov'er- behalf of the Crown, and the money it was sight-still appeared in it. I saw the Miui- uisiag had been voted by Parliament. A ister, who introduced the Bill ii. another city printer took action against the mem- place, with the object of expressing liy ber with the object of unseating him and opinion that the clause should be riore recovering the penalty stipulated Por a comprehensive than it "'as. H~e then told breach of the provisions of the Constitu- mae it had been struck out in the Asseinbly tion Act relating to members of Parlis- as it was considered unnecessarv. I am nmant entering into contracts with the mentioning this to show that the Minister, Crown. The Forrest Ministry, then in who subsequently appointed two members power, brought in a Bill for the purpose of of Parliament to the commission, sincerely amending the Constitution Act, and of believed that in doing so he w"as not in- nullifying the proceeding which had been volving thenm in any liability under thle taken. The ground given -was that the Constitution Act. No one will doubt that member had unwittingly made the con- either member would have left himself tract, and was not aware at the lime that open to litigation if be had thjoiuht there he was breaking the law. The validating was the slightest reason to believe t~lat his section of the Act reads as follows- seat would be in jeopardy, with the npos- NO action or other legal proceedings, shall lie sibility also of incurring a heavy pecuniixy or be further maintained or continued, if already penalty. It can well be understood that commenced, against any member of Parliament both members relied upon the asrne for any violation of Sections 24, 25, or 32 of of the Government of the day flint every- thle Principal Act alleged to have been comn- inutted before the passing of this Act. thing was right. Everything may he right, but, at the .sanme time, there may ho a long The Bill passed the second and third read- process of costly litigation ahead for the ings in both Houses without a division. In member who still retains his seat is, Par- the Legislative Council the Standing Orders liament, and the question may wvell be were suspended to enable it to pass throug-h asked, "Would it be fair, in viewv of all all its stages at one sitting, which it did. The the circumstances, to allow hint to become late Mr. Sept. Burt, who was Attorney Gen- the victim of his desire to meet time wishes eral in thme Forrest Ministry, introduced the of the Government then in power, and Bill in the Legislative Assembly and Mr. S. give his services in the cause of chiarity?'' R. Parker, then Colonial Secretary, intro- And for what monetary rewvard! Paltry duced it in the Legislative Council. The fees from the funds that he would help to Bill included some amendments of the Con- organmise, fees which could not possibly re- stitution Act. In his second reading speeeh quite him for his labours. If there were Air. Burt pointed out several of the pitfalls a snspiciun that the appointments to the to be found in our Constitution Act. In Commission had been framed for political "Hfan sar," 1894, at pages 1016 and 1017, he putrposes, or to serve party ends, and not expressed himself as follows- in the interests of the successful adminis- The same difficulty that we are dealing with tration of the Lotteries Act, the Bill would aLrose inl Canada, some years ago, aiid a select not be entitled to a moment's 4monsidera- committee of the Housec of Commons in that tion. No one is likely to makep this the country reported on the subject; and, perhaps, ground of his objection. There is no room [ many be permitted to quote from a work on " Parliamentary Practice and Procedure,'' by for such a suspicion. The selection Was a Canadiani author. The writer says:- made without regard to party, and it so In the Session of 1877 attention was called happens that the gentleman who is now in the House of Commons to the fact that involved in a law suit holds political a number of members appeared to have in- opinions contrary to those of the Govern- :Ldvertently infringed the third section of the Act, which is as follows:-"No person ment which appointed him. Trhere is a whosoever 'holdiag or enjoying, undertaking precedent for the legislation. In 1894, a or executing directly or indirectly1 alone member of Parliament, who was carrying or with, any other, by himiself or by the in- (16 NOVEMBER, 1033.)295 1959

terposilion of :any trustee or third party, members of Parliament.) It was never any contract or agreement with Her Maj- alleged at the time that these members were esty, or with any public ofticer or depart, disqualified, but the comiviittee were of opin- meat, writhi respect to the public service of ion, nevertheless that according to the true Canada, or under which any public servic construct ion of thle Act for securing the in- of Canada is to be paid for any service or dependence of Parliament, the transactions work shiall be eligible as a member of the in question (lid constitute disqualifying con- House of Commons, nor shall hie sit or vote tracts. ' The result of this report was the in the same.' Sonic doubts arose as to the resignation, during the recess of 'Mr. Anglin, meaning of thle word 'contract' under thle Mr. M1ount, and some other members who foregoing section, and all the cases in which had entered into 'disqualifying contracts,' nmnmbers were supposed to have brought according to the strict interpretation of the themselves wvithmin the intent of thec statute, law given by the committee. In concluding were referred to the- committee onl privileges. their report the commnittee of 1877 stated lim the several cases so referred, it was al- their opinion that the Act required careful leged-(I) that MrIt. Anglimn, the -Speaker, revision and amendment. During the debate who was editor amf proprietor of a news- on the Act there was a general expression paper, h-ad received Public money in payment of opinion that the penalty (0,000 dollars a for pmrinting and stationery furnished 'per day) was exorbitant. Some actions for the agreement' to thme Post Office )Department;- recovery of the penalty having been entered (2) that Mir. Carrier was a mnemher of a against several members for alleged vitola- firm which had supplied sonic lunmber to the tions of thle Act, the Government introduced Department of Public Works; (3) that M-Ir. a Bill for the piurpoe-as set forth in the Norris was one of the proprietors of a line preamible--of relieving from the pecuniary of steamers upon the Lakes, which had car- penalty under tme statute such persons as ried rails for time Government; (4) that Mr, na-y hnve unwittingly rendered themselves Burpee was a member of a firm which was liable to the same. The Act applied, how- supplying certainl iron goods to Government ever, only to those persons who may have railways; (5) that 'Mr. 'Moffat was inter- sat or voted at any tinie up to the end of ested in, and had been paid for, the trans- that session of Parliament." port of rails for the Government; (6) that It will be seen that lin Canada they dealt Mr. Workmn was a member of a firm in- with the question by passing an Act to'indem- terested in the supply of hardware to the mify those members who had unwittingly ren- Department of Public W~orks; and (7) that dered themselves liable. Mr. Desjardins was editor and publisher of the 'Nouveau Monde.' which had received Mr. Burt gave his interp~retatinn of the Ar-I. public money for GoverTnment advertise- He said, onl page 1019- mea0tts and printing. Both M.\r. Cornier amid Mr. Norris believing that they had unwit- It might, for instance, include those who tingly infringed thme law, resigned their -seats give bonds or enter into securities for time per- during thme session. In only one ease, that formance of contracts with the Government- of 'Mr. Anglin, were the committee able to mail contracts and -other contracts -requiring report, owing to tlhe lateness of the session. a bond or surety for its due performnance; Ink this case, which caused much discussion, or even in the case of Government officers who thle committee caine to the conclusion that aire required to provide bonds or sureties. It the election was void, inasmnuch as M,\r. Anig- is a moot question whether those who enter han became a party to a comntract with thle into these bonds have not aj contract with the Postmaster General, but 'that it appeared Government, In fact there are such an in- from Mr. Anglin 's evidence, that his actionl finity of cases-the ramifications of these dis- was taken ender thle bona fide belief, founded qualifying clauses are so far-reachig-that on the precedent and practice hereinafter I verily believe three-fourths of thle members, stated, that hie was not thereby holding, en- if not almost everyone, in this House would jo , ing, or undlertaking any contract or agree. come within the provisions of the Act as it nitnt within time section. ' lit thme Russell now Stands. I feel confident the House will case of 1864 (the precedent referred to ini assist tile Government in putting sonic legisla- the report>, an election committee of the tion on the statute book to remedy this state Legislative Assembly of Canada found that of things, while, at the same time, not open- the publication, by thme umember for Russell, ing the door to abuses, of advertisements for thme public service. paid for with tme public moneys.. dlid not And oi page .1.022, the late 'Mr. George create a contract within the meaning of thle Leake said : Art. Oim the other hand, time committee of 1877 came to the conclusion that thle de- The principal Act aimed at railway con- cision of 1864 was erroneous. It appeared tracts and contracts for public work;, from the ev-idence taken by that committee and contracts for annual supplies for and from the puhlic accounts of the Domnin- the different departments of thle public ion, that 'between 1867 and 1872 numerous se-rvice; it was to 1keept those who en- orders, given 1by public officers, for the in- tered into such contracts as these out of the sertion of advertisenmats connected with the House that the clauses in the Constitution Act Public Service were fulfilled, and various were directed. I do not think it was ever in- sums of public nmonmey were paid therefor to tendled to prevent all dealings, in the ordlo- 1960 1960[COUNCIL.]

ary course of daily business, betWeen a store- accept the fees, but that he could riot accept keeper who happened to be a member of the the office in all honorary capacity, for it was House and the Government. if the Conrolns- sioner of Railways wants to buy a tin of unils ajil office for which fees were provided and or a bar of iron from any retail storekeeoper therefore was an office of profit. Sub- wvho also happens to htold a seat in parliament, sequently I submitted the point to a leading it is rather hard that, under snob circum- K.C. of the day, who confi rmed tha t opinion. stances as that, the memnber selling tile bar of I turnied thle papers out this afternoon aid iron or the tin of nails should be dzisqunlilled, atil liable to a penalty of £:500. So, too, it .satisfied rmrselfC tha t that is so. A mjore ie- is rather hard that contracts for Governmecnt renut ruling, I unidertatd, has confirmed that advertisements, for instance, should not he op~inion. Memrbers of Parliamient have in taken by a member who may ippen to hlold thne past. be-en op poited 103-al Conrinis- a seat in this House, and who aiso may ho thle proprietor of a newspaper, or thle owner of stoners They have drawn travelling ex- the necessary plant or machinery for publish- penrscs, it riot iii somte cases fees. They ing those adlvertisemnents. therefore committed breaches of the Con- . ... and it would ble rather hard if the mere stitution Act or did sorncthinz which could publishing of anl advertisement, under the Royal Arms, by the Commissioner of Railways, Iune- given ground for action. Iwas nearly for the information and convenience of thle involved in a breach of the Constitution Act public, should disqualify one of these members urYself manliy years ago. I was a member of from sitting here, and subject him to a penl- Par!ljament. A nai m whom I knew was the alty of £500...... Tt was never meant, in successful tenderer for the supply of cord such eases as I have referred to, that in open- ig should Ile made for anly speculative person wood to the Railway De)pamrtmuent. le asked who saw a prospect of getting £500, to lay a ine to become sutret;' for hia nrd I agreed. trap, orl to watch until some member haippened Whent 1 read the bond 1 thought J could to trip...... It must be rememibered that .see that a breachi of the Constitution Act. this £500 does not go into the public Treasury, hut into the pocket of the enterprising indi- Iiii g-it Ile coimriitted. Oly one suretY was vidual who brings this action. required. [ ref used to sign tlte bond, which I received the next day. It consisted of? A number of amendments wvere made to the tlirie foolscap plages; of tylpewrittem matter, Act, but it was found difficuilt to draft a wvhich I carefullyv-cad. I referred time mat- satisfactory clause dealing with contracts, ter 1o tile C-oWrln hw lDepartmnent, andl anad, as the~re was no time to give the matter stated my objection to signing the l)ond. proper considerotion , nothing was done in They saidi my objection was sound and that I that respect. The Act remains to a large wvould be acting- very wvisely iideed ifi d idl extent in the same condition as it was then, trot appernd tvsignature to the docurrment. except that there is a limit to the time in I have, on inany occasions, been tiie rmeanls which action ena be taken and the penalty of preventing new members of Parliament has been reduced frorn £500 to £200. Per- fromi uinocently' jeopardising their seats. In sonally, I have hadl experience of the tricky' the case of the mlember of Parliament who character of the provisions of time Constitul- accepted a lace oi the Lottteries Conilnis- tion Act inl relation to imembjers of Parlia-l siort, he, it seemi to in, iL entitled to more meat. ]in 1905, when I was Minister for c-oinsideratioin was Lands, I desired to appoint a Royal Coal- than the nmember of Pa'r- imisin to ,make an investigation into hiaturent who rmade at printing contract with forestry'A matters. There was only one p.erson at Governmnent body iii 1894. Thme fornier -anid lie was at member of Parliament- tool; tine positin onl the Lotteries Comrmis- whom I considered competent to make th e sioni onl the assurance of the Government of investigation. Ice did not belong- to the the day that everything was inl oi-der-tlrat party to which I was attached. tire Constitution Act did not comie into the Hon. G. W. Miles: Wer*e there parties in question. InI the 1894 case, the member of those days? Parliament involved wars well-versed in con- The CHIEF SECRETARY: Ye's, three stitutional procedure, aimd should have parties,. I approached this gentleman, who known better. There was no doubt that the expressed his willingness to adt. The qlues- Act Itad been flagrantly violated iii his case. tion thenr arose in my minad whether lie could Yet we find men of high standing like the accep~t the usual fees without committing a late Sir John Forrest, the late Mr. Burt, Q.C., breach of the Constitution Act. I referred and the late Mtr. S. H. Parker espousing his the matter to the Crown Law department cause, and the Legislative Council of the day and wvas advised that not only could he not p~assinig without a division the second and [16 NOVEMBER, 1983.] 1961 third readings of the Bill, which wvas to cause Parliament has that right, it was given indemnify him, and suspending the standing the right presumably to uphold the prestige orders to enable the Bill to go through at a of Parliament and to treat every section of single sitting. The present Government was the community alike. The question is in no wvay responsible for the appointments whether it will be wise for Parliament, in to the Lotteries Commission. But we feel its owni interests, to intervene at this stage committed to take such action as our prede- and stop a ease that is already before the cessors would haove felt bound to take bad Supreme Court. That is the question we they remained in office, and I trust that in have to answer, and also how it may affect view of the circumstances the House will act Parliament in the immediate future if we on the precedent set in 1S94 and pass this .should take that course. Whether we Bill. do so or not, the p'ublic of this State look to Parliament to set a standard 1 HON. J. J. HOLMES (North) [5.41: of morality. No matter howv serious am sort) I cannot agree with the views ex- the ease may be, we Ca unot allow a position pressed by the Chief Seeretary. to be created iii the community' that will per- Hon. E. H. Gray: That is nothing un- mit Parliament to step in and prevent anl usual. action that has been set inin otion aga ist Hon. J. J. HOLMES: I never agree with a Member of Parliament. It would ap- the hon. member who has just interjected. pear that when it comes to ordinary Prohably it would be difficult to get down citizens, the proceedings must go on, to his level. I ant bound to express anl and the judgment of the court must opinion onl this question as it appears to be accepted. I am not at all concerned with me. I propose to deal with the Matter either the plaintiff or the defendant in this as one between a Jplaintiff and a defendant, matter, but what I am concerned about is leaving out Parliamentarians altogether. that we have a plaintiff a nd a (defelnant be- I am very' much concerned about Parliamuen- fore the court, and Pa riamen t is asked to tory interference with the course of justice. prevent the court from giving its opinion The British courts of justice have done more onl the question of the validity of lu il- to keep the Empire together than even the pointuinent that is said to conflict with the battleships and the annay; it is recognirised Conistitution Act. throughout the world that you can always lion. Sir Edward Ilittenoom: It goes fur- get justice in a British community, even thmer than that. though the individual may not be one of that lHon. E_ H. G1ray interjectedt. natonait'v Wht onceTns Me. as I have lust said, is that we have a case pending lion. J. J. HOLMES: I have already told before the court, and the court has been the lion, member that I cannot get down to asked to decide the validity of the appoint- his level. Another question is raised and merit oC a member of Parliament to a seat that is that the defendant in the action has onl the Lotteries Conmnission. From my unwittingly and unknowingly been put in a standpoint, that ease must go on, and there false position. That question arises from imist be no interference with the procedure the standpoint of justice and what is right. inl the Courts Of justice. Any such interfer- Thle House has to remember the circum- ence will be a boomerang that will hit the stances that led to the appointments being Parliament of this country harder than any- made. They arc such that the Lotteries Act one else. The Bill before us sets out that wras passed and as it w~as thought certain no action or other legal proceedings shall lie gentlemen were desirable people to act as or be further maintained or continued, if members of the commission, they were offered already* commenced, against any member of ,and they accepted the appointments. the Parliament of Western Australia. it lionl. E. HI. Gray: Iii good faith. inam h e done; I do not know that it has been Hon. J4 J4 HOLMES: I do not take atone- done- sided view of the position, as some people The Chief Secretary: It has been done. do. Whilst it might he argued, and canl be Hon. J1. J. HOLMES: It was done in the argued and has been argued, that ignorance' dlark ages in Western Australia, and 67 is no defence, I do not know that that ap- years ago in Canaa. it may be that Par- Plies inl this case. In the eyes of the law liamnent has the right to intervene, but be- ignorance is no defence. Thle court, hlow- jCOIINCIL.J ever, has yet to dec-ide whether ant offemare liability his membership of the Lot- has been committed. terics Commission involved. From my Hoalt. A. Thomson;: You are now decidi la standpoint, nothing- else could be equitable. whether an offence has been comimitted. It order to justify my attitude towards in- Hon. J. J. HOLMES: The court has to terference with courts of justice, ]et inc take decide, and as far as I ta concerned no other naembers back to a time whlen we weredel tribunal can lie set upt. If the case goes in iin with the Arhitralion B3il1 late one night. favour ot the defendant, lae can contine as The late Mr. I ovekiia had tin amendment heretofore and carry out both jobs. Mr. puat into tile Bill wich ainade tile rules and Thomson has told us that thie position held regulations of the Sulnpi ne Court subjc- by the defendant is not an oiec af profit to perusal aad adoption by IParliamnatt. -Ma. under the Crown. Drew, in order to sepai-ate Parliament front Hor. A. Thaoason: I said it was a mnatter the Supremae Conurt, ait once moved to re- of opianion. port progress. Next day hie came along Hon. JI. J. HOUNIES: The boan. member wvith at notion to discharge the Bill from the Notice Papier. He tried to get the Bill did not say jal his speech "in his opinion ;" 011l, of the House, that they might go to the he weant furthaer anad said it was not an office countr , and Hog this House for attempting of profit. I it is not, why not allowv the de- to interfere with the courts of justice. We fendant to accept the verdict which then then gave notice tloat the Arbitration Bill must be in his favour, and continue in the should be the first to lie proceeded with onl two jobs? Bult if the Court should decidemi the following day. After at considerable favour of the plaintiff, then in the namie of time,' during which I was asked to assist decency it is the clear duty of the Govern- the Chicf Secretary to find a wvay out of ment to see that the defendant's costs ar-e the difficulty, we wvithdrewv our notice and paid because atewlas offered the position by the Chief Secretary withdrew his notice, the Government, at position that he did not and w-e went onl with the Bill, keeping clear consider- carr-i ed anty liability. Even if at of interference with the ernzrts of justice. Bill saoald be niecessar 'y to liquidate tin, That is what 1. ask the ouse to do onl this liability,. it would have myl support. ocenslon. I mu0trying to uphold the pres- Boa,. G. Fraser: That would] not repair tige of Parliament kand1 to do0as the Chief tia. damag-e (lone. Seretary did then, namely, keep Parlia- Ifoua. E. I-I. ('ray: That would be only a nieat separate front the procedureP of the Sanl part. Sup1 remne Court. in tanitpeiiaag withi the Constitution we tire III) a Hin. J. J. HOLMES: If the ease ,hould setting pr~ecedent. go against the defendant, theaI the defendant ,It mnay he that at no far distant date I is ill n position that lie has to choose bet weean might he charged with embezzlement, and being a nmember of Parlisament and being a some members might say, "Well, lie is a member of the Lotteries Comamission. 'The (decent sort or chap, hie has been in Parlia- question of expenses will not influeance Inc. ment a long ti me, let us pass tin Acci. in order to protect the Constitution I would prevent the ease going on." When we g~o even further if necessary. If the lion,. establish at precedent, we never know nieniber had to contest tillmelection, I would wh~ere it is going to finish, or whose turn it see that time costs of that election did maot may be next. So we have to be very care- come out of his pocket. What I am seekinag till :Obout what we (d0 in that rega ri. In iny opinion to do is to preserve the Constitution uncdem the defendant has been badly adivised. If lie would but listen to reason which we live. lie would win clear of this and conic out onl The Honor-ary Mlinister: Suppose lie got lop), as hie could do, and no reflection would a verdict, whaqt about the expenses to wlai.- he, cast upon Parliament to the effect that lie haas ailreadlv been suhjected? wye are seeking to do something for one of Hon. J. J. HOLMIES- If the homa.mneal- our own members which we would not do ber should be out of pocket by tlae tian4s for anybody else. There has been too much action, the (lovernanent should font the bill. legal advice about this matter, and not I repeat that the Slate should reimburse the enough common sense. There is an old say- hon. nieaber if the case went in favour of ing to the effect that doctors bury tbeir the plaintiff, be-ause the defendanit wias mistakes, but lawyers make us pay for in thi position of not knowing- the theirs. I have been mixed up in a sa-mi- [10 'NOVinian, 1933.]196 1963 w-hat similar case, and the lawyers made ine lion. Sir Edward Wittenooxn: Claus 'I pay to the extent of about £800. Tte dhisv is the best part of the Bill. was just as; wicked and vindictive a one lion. J1. J1. HOLMES: The greatest suir- as this tinder consideration. T (lid iiol ask prise of all was the statement by Sir Edward anyone to come to my rescue, but I had on Wittenonm" last t)ight. First li uaid hie was my13side the best brains in Australia, the Lentirely opposed to the Bill. master brain of the present Governor Gen- Ton. S-ir Edward Wittenooni: No; I said eral. He was advising me, yet I went down I was opposePd to the previouc Bill, and 1 and, as J say, it cost me £800. But T was congratulated the Presidlent on having not debarred from entering Parliainent. thrown it out. The election was declared null and void. Ron. J1. J1. HOLMIES: The previous Bill I did not attempt to enter Parlianient then, was the samne thing uinder another title. Then and I declared I never would enter Parlia- the lion. mnember said he wvas inclined to fav- mnt until they amended the Art, whieh our it. I. hope that by the time time debate did. The whole ease hinged on 22 they3 is concluded, hie will be seeing eye to eye voters, who voted though having no right to with mc, But vote. M'%ymajority was 20, and the judge the lion. minlber wvent far- rightly said that the 22 might or might tlier and said that a. man qualified as a. mean- not have affected the election. But it wras ber of Parliament was qualified for any well known that 20 out of the 22 were Labh- position in the State which he might choose our supporters, who wore not at all likely' to (bcuapx t. wish I vecul agree with that. to have voted for ine, Eventually the elec- i'n view of the opinions the hon. member has tion was declared null and void. The lire- expressed about the University, and about sent defendant is in much the same posi- the State trading concerns, I wonder if ho tion as I was. When he gets his verdict. i r really thiinks the one or the other could be it goes against him he can carry on with I)roperly handled by a member of Parlie- the commission, or nominate for Parlia- inent, handled better thain by any man out- ment, whereas if the verdict he in hi., side Parliament. I caninot agree with Sir favour he can continue in both offices. The Edward ont that point. The point that con- Honorary Minister, when moving the sec- cerns me i6 that if we give the po-wer asked ond reading, said there was an element of for in the Bill, not merely to the present doubt about the position. Doubt having Oovernmmmt, hut to all future (iovernmemts, arisen, surely it is for t-hc court, Dot for thiere will be no end to this legislation. If Parliament, to decide the point. The Hon- we give this power to Governments still to orary Minister said we were hound to assist conie, we shall hie putting into their hands the defendant. Of course we are. On that the right to appoint political supporters to point I am just as, sincre as any other nieni- political positions. We ought not in this her of the House; perhaps I am inre State got down to u. condition of politics sincere than miost of them. in ily desire to which we have never had in the past. One see that the defendant does not suiffer. But thing I ran say about polities in Western when we conic to Clause .3. 1 do nt know Australia is that they have beeni above sus- where we are getting to. Clause 3 provides picion. But when we think of the future, for any case that may arise hereafter, until amid consider all that is happening in Aus- the Constitution is again amended. Accord- tralia, we see that it would be exceedingly ing to thle Chief Secretary, it has been dangerous to give any future Government known in this country for the past 40 or the power to offer political positions to poli- 50 vears that it was necessary to amend thep tical opponents, thus buying their support Constitution in certain directions. vet outside of Parliament, and still having their nothing has been done. Mr. Baxter has services in Parliament to vote for the party. told us that when the previous Government Consider what happened in -New South were in power they took steps to have te Wales under the Lang Administration. M1en Constitution amended, hut did not finishi the were put into positions which they knew job. During time last 40 or 50 years. if nothing about, and were paid hinge salaries. the position is as stated by the Chief The present CGovernmuent of N ew South Secretary, it should have been somehody" Wales have had to pay enormous s~ums in job to look into this matter. compensation to get rid of them, That Gov- Man. C. F. Baxter: An attemp~t wa.-i inade ernmient dismissed them, bait those men in 1919, but yon voted against it. brought actions against the (-overoment for [COUNCIL.]

wrongful dismissal, and the Governmnent took 'wl to, to do the right thing. We are the preferred to pay the amounts prescribed by Inw-,nakers of lime country, anad we should the court rather than keep. those men inl set an example of which the public may- be their positions. It is that sort of thing- I proud. The line I set out upon is the line L am striving to avoid. Mir. Thomson hats propose to follow right through. If other said that he still contends that a seat on the members tic not see eye to eye with me I Lotteries Commission is not an office of pro- cannot hielp it. It is anl equitable, reason- fit under the Crown. Yet he wants to amend able, and honest way out of the difficulty. If the Constitutioni to get over a difficulty xvhich the defendant is likel 'y to suffer by following lie is satisfied does not exist. I hat pro4:edure, then I shall not lie wanting Hon. A. Thomason: And you are satisfied in miy efforts to sec that hie snffers no that it does exist; so it is at matter of opinion. monetary loss. .l must oppose the second rend ing of the Bill. Hon. 3. J. HOLMIES:- Mr. Thomlson Was not putting it forward as a matter of opinl- HON. R. G. MOORE (North- East) 1]5.35]: ion; he was most insistent about it. It is uot inw intention to express nn opinion Then we have M1r. Cornell's speeh. Strange ais to whether or not the position in question attack the Bill, as is his to say he did not is ant office of profit under the Crown. I do, usual custom, with horse, foot and artillery. however, wish to offer a few opinions con- He said, "[I submit in all humility we should cerning the Bill and the remarks which have he subjecting ourselves to proper and honest beenl made by previous speakers. Mr. Thomi- criticism if we amended the Conlsti tution so s.on said the integrity and ability of Mr. as to permit members of Parliament to sit on Clydesdale had been brought into question, the Lotteries Commission." I entirely agree because of certain action that had been taken with him. We should tie holding ourselves in the House. I most emphatically protest up to ridicule if we did so. 'Not a word canl against that statemient. I interjected that be said against the defendant ats to the past, there was no suggestion of anything of the and I do not think anything can be said as kind. Neither by suggestion nor inference to the future. The right thing to he done in was the integrity or ability of 'Mr. Clydes- this ease is to let it go on. If it is decided dale questioned in any13way. against him, then. will be the time to see that Hon. A. Thomson: T did not say that. hie does not suffer by the decision. When -we "1-anisard" will bear me out. find ourselves in difficulties, we should take Hon. 11. Gr.MOORE: All I can say, con- each hurdle as we come to it. If we adopt cerning the remamrks lie did make, is that that principle, we can take the hurdle in th ere is at distinction wi thout a diff erence. I question if the ease goes against the de- intend to oppose Clause 3 of the Bill, be- fendant. I am sure that ultimantely'x the lion. cause this is a. most inopportune time at member wiii come out of it with credit to which to introduce the principle contained himself. B 'v doing as I suggest, there would in it. 'We have repeatedly heen told that it be no interference wvith the Constitution. I is almost impossible for the Government to am concerned that it should not go abroad find enough jobs to go round, even to give that at special Act of lPamrliament had to be relief work in anything like the manner put through for any special member of Par- desired. liament. I would g~o further and urge, and Hon. H. V. Piesse: There a9re 140 jobs almost beseech, with most profound humility awaiting men on the land, but the men can- -to use 'Ar. Cornell's words--that not be secured in Perth. the friends of the defendant should en- Hon. R. 0. MOORE: We have just passed deax'our to persuade him not to be a party legislation which makes it a criminal offence to interference with the case already listed for any man who is hard up and out of work before the Supreme Court. I am as certain to sign a false declaration in an effort to get as I stand here that, if interference is a jobi, and he can be put into gaol for doing attempted, tme pendulum will swimng back. so. I believe that civil servants have been Suppose the court said we have no right to informed by the Government that they are do this. In what position would Parliament not to take on any remnnerative work other and the defendant stand then? I should say than the office they hold, if it is possible to that in the eyes of the public it would be a find a competent person to do it. The reason pretty bad position. We ought to be, if we given is that there are not enough jobs to are not, an institution that the public can go round. [16 NOVEMBER, 10.33.] 196596

Hon. Sir Edward Wittenooni: At 6s. a think the person who has3 proceeded against day. Mr. Clydesdate is in the least bit concerned hon. Rt G. MOGH'E: They wvere advised about the justice of the ease. I lo-ok upon not to take the work because of the him as I would upon a pimp. He is looking sitringency of the times. I cannot reconcile for the monney' lie would get for a conviction. thle action of the onvernment in their en- He sees an opportunity to make easily £260, deavour to legalise the appointment of memn- and is going to endeavour to get it. bers of Parli ament to the Lotteries Commis- Hon. E. H.T Hanris: And the law says he sion, and the payment to them of remunera- can get it. tion in addition to their parliamentary Hon. 1R. G. MO1ORE: If he can get it, salaries, when no restrictions are placed upon very well, but he is only concerned about their earning other money outside. £: s. d., and not the individual. Hon. Sir Edward Wittenuom: Why Hon. J. J. Holmes:- We should not he con- should they not appoint inembeits of! Parlia- cerned about the individual either. ment? They ought to be better than other people. Hon. R. G. MOORE: We have to be con- lion. R. U1. MOO0RE1;: There arc many erned about the individual in meting out wen who are not members of Parliament, justice in this case. A little while ago a but who are good and honourable men pos- married woman lost her husband. She had sessing high qualifications. been divorced in one State andl re-married Hon. Sir Edward Wittencomn: Why do in another and reared a family. Her hus- they not get into Parliament? band died. When she took out probate she The PRESIDENT: .1 must ask memibers was told that her children were illegitimate to allow M3r. Moore to proceed with his because the divorce laws in one State were speech. different from those in another, and that Lion. H. G. MOORE: It is not the amnhi- because of this technical difference in the tion of everyone to get into Parliament. and divorce laws she could not get any portion not everyone who has the ambition can get of her late husband's estate. Is that justice? in. A man cannot say, "I am going to be Hon. W. J. Mann: You could multiply a member of Parliament," and become one;, that case by dozens. otherwise there would hie mtore members than Hon. R. G. MOORE: This happened there are to-day. f am opposed to tinkering within the last 12 months. That is lawvk,for with the Constitution merely to evade penal- which sonic hon. members are so concerned. ties, hut this is a peculiar case. Parliament It is not justice. I ami more concerned for has power to mnake laws and unmake them. real justice than for technical points of law. When Mr. Clydesdale was appointed to the For- the reasons I have already stated, Lotteries Commission he was assured that l strongly oppose one clause of the this would not interfere with his Parlianien- Bill. A member of Parliament should tary position, and he accepted the office onl not be a member of the Lotteries Commis- that assurance. That being so, it becomes 6ion, especially under present conditions. a duty of the Government to do all thingps However, the circumstances of the case are possible to safeguard the hon. member. such that if the Government can do some- Hon. Sir Edward Wittenoom: Do you thing to protect a person who has been un- mean the duty of this Government or the wittingly led into a false position, they are previous one? quite within their rights in doing it. I sup- Hon. R. G. MOO0RE: Of any Government port the second reading of the Bill, hoping that happens to he in power. A good deal that in Committee Clause 3 will be deleted. has been said about justice. I believe in jus- tice, but it is not always justice that is HON. 3. NICHOLSON (-Metropolitan) meted out by the law. -Someone said the [5.47] : The debate onl this measure, follow- law is an ass; I think he was a wise tian. Is ing the removal from the Notice Paper of it justice to victimise a person for accepting the Lotteries (Control) Act Amendment Bill, a position at the bands of the Government has served a useful pur-pose, because, as when he had the assurance that his Parlia- shown hr- the Chief Secretary's speech, it mentalry position would not be jeopardised has thrown light upon occurrences of a some- thereby? There would be no justice in that, what similar nature which took place iii years though it might he within the law. I do not gone by. in the course of the debante on the [COUNCIL.]

former Bill mention was made of the case har-dly analogouis to tihe presenlt ease in, which which occurred in relation to the Harbour at mlemiber of Parliament is. Concerned Trust Act; but what has been brought for- Honl. .1. 41. Holmies: It is nearer tu tihe ward by the Chief Secretary serves to throw point than you get soinctimeN-. a new light for all members in considering Hon. .1. NKICHOLSON: I am glad to hear the present Bill. I agree with the Chief the lion. menmber suggest that. I hope lie Secretary that thle case which occurred iii will give me at ]east this credit, that iii my 1894--and which lie quoted as a precedent efforts to elucidate this difficulty I am right for this Bill-bad not nearly tihe same re- in pointing out that he has cited a ease commendations for acceptance by both Which is rather wide of the point, and one Houses of Parliament as the present Bill which is decidedly not simtilar to the case has. There are circumstances connected of the meemlber of Parliament concerned inl with this case which clearly render it neces- this Bill. That member of Parliament is not sary for us to take a reasonable view of the rharged with any ei-iniinal offence. whole situation. In the first lace we have Hon, J1. J1. Holmes: No more was I. to recognise that Parliament is the supremre Hon. J. NICHOLSON: That mnember of legislative authority. I agree with Mr. P'arliament is t charged with a felony. It Holmes that we must not thwart, or unduly a man has eomrumitted a felony, then [lhe Ilaw interfere with, thc rights of our 'courts of miust take its course and justice must be justice; nor should we seek unduly to strain done, and the offence committed by the man or stretch our Constitution Act. 'We are canm only he expiated by his suffering what- bound to conserve the rights granted to us ever penalty may ha awarded. under the Constitution. However, circum- Hon. J. S. Holmies: Why do you take that stances aiise, if not every year, yet at certain case instead of thle ease that actually hap- periods during the life of Parliament, when peneld?~ we have to give more liberal thought Hon. J. 'NICHOLSON: I am leading up and consideration to eases which pre- to the actual ease. Mr. Holmies quoted a. sent themselves. It is because of certain case of felony as supporting the conclusion circumstances connected with the ease of tihe to which he came. I hope that in the course member of Parliament concerned in the pre- of the. debate lie will realise that the fact of sent. Bill that I feel disposed to give Ily time argument put forward by himn being fal- support to the measure. Mr. Holmes has lacious should cause him (o alter the views given expression to high ideals. To thlis I lie has expressed. Comparing the ease of take no exception; f rather applaud him for emnbezzlement or felony with dile actual case doing so. He supports4 his contention as to before us, we find from time explanations the course which he considers should be pur- which have been so clearlyv given by the Hon- sued by suggesting that we tire not justified, orary Minister and tile Chief Secretary from for certain reasons, inl passing the B1ill, lie outi own knowledge of the circumistances, and referred to the ease of a muember of Parlia- even from the records of Parliament, that mnent who might lie chiarged wvith a felony. this particular member of Parliament was Hon. J1. J. Holmecs: I suggested it mnyself; unwittingly and innocently induced, shfall I I did not put it uplonl any other member. say~, to accept the particular offlce the hold- I-on. J. NICHOLSON: Hie suggested that ing of which by him has now beeii chal- if hie were charged with embezzlement lenged. He is threatened; I Lunderstand his fellow members igh-t turn round and proceedings have been launched against say, "Mr. Holmnes has been a very use!fnl him in thle Suprenie Court. HeI was and capable member. Let us pass some en- induced by the 'Government of the actment which will relieve him." day-not the present Government-to Hon. J. J. Holes; No; "pass all Act to to accept a certain office. The hon. memt- stop the proceedings." her having undertaken those duties, does Hon. J. NICHOLSON: I will not say it not fall upon the shoulders of the Gov- that: I will say, "to remove disqualifica- ernment to redress the wvrong~ whichl has tions.)) been done? As tha supreme legisilative Hlon. J. J1. Holmes: You must quote me authority, Parlianient will n-ot be doing properly'. anything that it has not done before if Hon. J. NICHOLSON: That particular it passes such legislation as this to give ease is of an extreme order, and really is; freedom from proceedings Which have been (16I NOVEMBER, 1933.] 196716 inlli tited and freedom fromu disquiiliticii- Ron. J. J. Holmes: He wvill keep away tions which the lion, member would suffer from lawyers. if he was found guilty of having violated Hon. J. NICHOLjSON: -to repeat the the provisions or the Constitution, MIr. dose at a later date, There must have been Holmes has argued, 'Let the Courts de- a doubt in the miinds of some of the lawyers cide the question." But the very preamble even in the ease in which Mr. Holmes was of' the Bill states clearly and distinctly concerned. what is intended to be done, or what is Hon. J. J. Holmes: There was no doubt the position. It states that doubts have in the mind of the court. arisen, 'Mr, Holmes, in his very able Hon. J. 'NICHOLSO'N: The court un- speech, (Iuotedl anl experience which he doubtedly camie to the conclusion after- himiself unfortunately had after, as he ex- wards that the ease should be decided ia plained, getting- advice from the greatest a certainL way' which, unfortunately, was brains of the day, brains including, . adverse to the interests of Mr. Holmes. believe, those of the present Governor- Ceneral-z i lzwter mind, every one will Hon. J. J. Holmes : Aknd decided iii the agree. Despite the opinion and the rig-ht way, too. ves expressed by that great and Hon. J. NICHOLSON: If he had realised eminent lawyer-and he is also a great and the doubt that existed, he would have re- eminent lean in his present office-the case cognised there was some reason for the wvent against Ms1Ir.Holmes, and he was introduction of the Bill and sonie force mulct inl heavy daulages. in the preamble to it wherein it is indi- lion. J. J. Holmes: Not damages, but law cated that '-doubts have arisen as to itieni- costs. hers of the Parliament of 11-estein Ans. tralia, having committed breaches of the Hfon. V. Hamiersley: A very different provisions'' of certain sections of the Con- thing. stitution Acts Amnendmuent Act. If there Hon. J. 'NICHOLSON: Possibly Mr. are doubts regarding the matter, and a Holmes was a benefactor who litle realised member of' Parliament finids himself inl a the benefaction he was bestowing- upon a similar positioi ('wing to his having, un- profession which no doubt greatly needed dertaken the position under discussion, his aid in those earlier years when he was sinrel it lies with Parliament to redress doubt-less earning a large income such as nien the -wrong- that has been done. eng-aged onl the land were reputed to be earn- ing then. That is by the way. He has Hion. J. M. Macfarlane: WVho knows given us that as an instance in support whether a wrongt has been done? of his conclusions, but, on the other hand. Hon. J. 'NICHOLSON: Parliament should hie has served, by quoting those particu- redress the wrong that has been dlone by lars, to demonstrate the fact that those removing the doubt that clearly exists. men who advised him at the time, although That can be done by means of the Bill, but great and eminent in law, made mistakes I believe in making the provision as safe and now it has been found-Mr. Holmes as possible so that it will not be left open must not find fault with it-that some to any member of Parliament to claim the doubt has been expressed with regard to benefit of any legislation that may he passed the position of a particulsr mamber of now. Parliament. Hon. C. F. Baster: Do not you think it the Constitution Act was amended! Hon. J. , Holmes: The lower court was is time right in its decision, and was supported Hon. J. NICHOLSON: TI'he instance r- by the High Court on an issue that was as ferred to by the Chief Secretary and the simple as possible. The lawyers got £800. view expressed by a very emi neat lawyer, Hon. J. NICHOLSON. And M~r. Holme!s the late Mr. Septimius Burt, regard,'g any lost his ease-also his £600. I am sure he alteration to the Constitut ion Act, would be can feel that be conferred a great benefit endorsed by every lawyer in Western Aus- on the legal fraternity. tralia. The difficulties involved in intio- ducing legislation to effect amendments we Hon. J. Cornell: The operation was suc- may desire, still maintaining, as far as po- cessful, bitt the patient died. sible, the integrity of the Constitution, ni-c lIon. J. NICHOLSON: No, hie survived so great that I am not surprised that and he will probably live- amnidinig legislation has not been intro- 1968 [COUNCIL.] duced. Whatever legislation inay be intro- R-on. VT.Hamersicy: What if lie lost his duced hereafter should be framed with the seat at the next election? greatest care, and the House should see to ll. J. NICHOLSON: It would not it that we safeguard our rights and powers, matter; the provision would cease to he op- just as another place should do likewise. I erative. TIdesire to limit the operations of believe the Honorary 'Minister has been in- the Act so that the continuation of the formed that it is regarded as desirable to member of Parliament now onl the comn- amend Clause 2. Probably hie wvill indicate mission in his duties associated with the to miembers what he is prepared to accept conission, shall not expose him to danger so as to make the position clear and defined, of consequent disqualification under the so that it wvill not be possible for the pro- Constitution Act, but the right of a main- visions of Clause 2 to lip availedl of by all ber of Parliament to retain that office and sundry but will be limited to the one should he limited to the member of Par- member of Parliament concerned at the pre- liament concerned at pteent. I intend to sent juncture. -After thinking over Clause support the second reading of the Bill. 3. 1 believe it is desirable to retain it in the Bill because I can sec 1)0 harmn in it so HON. G. W. MILES (North) [6.15]: .1 long as the scope of that clause is limited Move- to one member and is ijot capable of appli- cation to all and sundiry.v I suggest the That the debate be adjourned. advisability of including Clause 3 because Motion putl, and a division taken, with Clause 2 deals with the holding of office the following result:- iby members of the Commission up to the 3 1st December, 1933. whereas Clause 3 ap- Ayes .8 plies to the continuation of the Act. I Noes believe it is desirable that a Bill should be introduced annually lto continue the Majority against - operations of the Lotteries (Control) Act, and if that were done, control of the legis- Hon. V. Hanersley Hon, a. SW.Miles lation would more fully hie in the bands lion. E. H. Harris Ilon. Sir C. Nathan Hon. J1.J. Holmes A=Hon. A. Thomson of Parliament than if we agreed to the Hon. 3. M. Macfarlane lion. R. G. Moore extension of the Act for three or four (Teller.) years. The particular member of Parlin- NOoS meat concerned in this matter at present Han. L. Is. notion Hn.LNicholson, certainly deserves consideration because Hon*. .1. rnell lHon. 14. V. Piesse Ron. J. M. Drw Ho. E. Those of the great. services he has rendered ini Hon. J. T. Franklin Hon. Sir E. Wittenoom the cause of charity. He has played a Han. G. Fraser Ron. C. H. Wittenoom, Hion. E. H. Gray lion. H. J. Teliand very prominent part in those activities Hon. W. H. Kitson flon. W. J. Mann and, prior to his appointment to the Lot- Hon. T. Moore (Teller.) teries Conimission, rendered fine service in Notion thus negatived. many directions. I suggest that Clause 3 be amended by striking out all the words Stitting suspended front 6.15 to 7.30 pi. from the commencement to and inclusive of "and" in line 4, with a view to inserting Personial Exvplanation. the following:- THE HONORARY MINISTER (Rion. Any member of the Parliament of Western W. H. Kitsou-West) [7.30] : Witit your Australia now holding office as a member of permission, Mr. President, I should like to the Commission appointed uader Section .3 of the Lotteries (Control) Act, 1932, or any Act make a persotial explanation. There appears amending same may continue to bold such office to have been soime misunderstanditg with during the continuance of the said last-men- respect to the Bill nowv before the House. tioned Act or any amendments thereof, and While we are keently desirous of making as the acceptance by such member of Parliament of or continuance by him in such office and the much progress as possible with the Bill, it acceptance. .. .. is not our wish that a vote bie taken on it The effect of that amendment would be to-nig ht. We hope that as ninny memibers as that the Bill would apply only to the par- possible will speak to the Bill tn-night, so ticular member of Parliament holding that it may he dealt with expeditiously at the office at the present time. tnext sitting of the House. 16C)NOVEMI nmt, Il1933.] 1969)

Debate resunted. this ease would he the tin, eatd of I he wedge HON. C. H. WITTXNOOM (South- to allow members of Par!liament to occupy East) [7.32]: 1 shall support the second ainy posit ion of profit tinder the Crown. That reading of the Bill, though I must confess mlig ht not be for the public good. Qu ite that during the few years I have been a apart fromt that, it should not be the policy member of this House no Bill has caused me of any Government to p~rovide several posi - so much displeasure as this ojie. T was very tions for one mail. That is wvhy member, of pleased to hear the exllation made by the Parliament are paid. The position is most Chief Secretary this afternoon in regard to unfortunate. Our desire is to retain Mlr. the manner in which the chairman of the Clydesdale's servIces onl the commission, yet Lotteries Commission camne to be appointed. we do not want to op)en the door for mem- Many members wvere not clear onl that point; bers of Parliament to occupy any position they did not know whether Alr. Clidesdale of profit tunder time Crowna. was sure that his position was soundi. I am Elon. Sir Edward Wittenoomi: 31r. ClYdes- also glad to know that his a ppointmnent was dale is not indispensable. not dlte to a ny ca rulessness oil tilt part of floa. C. H. WITTlXNOOM : I could not the previous G overnment. I (lid think at one say. The Constitution Act was framed by time that sufficient care had not been taken picked and clever men wvlo gore deep to obtain proper leg-al advice onl the appoint- thought to every point in it, and their work ment. should not lie uindermi ned. Mr. Clydoesdale's Hon. C. F3. Baxter: But it was had advice wvork on the Comamission has been at credit the previous Government got. to hinself and to those assoctised with him. Holl. C. H. WITTENOOM1: I am, ]how- No whisper or suspicion of unfairness or ever, quite satisfied onl that point now. The unbuisinesslike methods has. ever been preamble of the Bill sets out that doubts have hrea thed against him, and the appreciation arisen as to members of Parliament havin of thme public is shown byv the support given committed breaches (of the ConstitutLion Act. to the lotteries. The fact that hie has re- It is raother surprising- to me that a Bill such umed the costs to four and a hialf per cent. as this should have keen brought down wvith- over sellers' costs is anl otutstanding achieve- out that poinat having been absolutely die- iment. I support the second reading. cided. Like Mr. -Nicholson. [ look upon this case a., a spec ial one needling special HON. H. V. PIESSE (South-East) consideration. I hlpe the difficulty'vwill I e [7.37] : It is mry intention to) stupport the overcome withiout the necessity for any per- Bill. When, the Lotteries Bill was before the inionen t alteration (if the Consti tutinat. House I said I would support it. I was If Clause 3 of the Bill be excised, mry hope very pleased indeed to listen to-day to the will proablyh be real isedi. I shall follow the Chief Secretary's explanation. We shotild debate onl Mkr. Nicholson's proposed amtend- give serious consideration to wvhat lie hats irient with interest. Ap parently, we have to told us. Many members of Parliament to- decide between an alteration of the consti- day must have guilty consciences, because tution or a change in the system of conduct- sonme of them who haove been dealing with ing the lotteries, n s;ystemi that has been fol- Government institutions perhaps did not lowed for the last eighteen months with so realise that they were acceptingr from the much advanitage to the community. While I Crown, money to which they were not shall support the second reading, [ reserve legally entitled. Unlike, my colleague, Mr. to myself the righIt to oppose Clause :3 when WVittentom, I think the present ease rather the Hill reaches the Committee stage. When proVes that we should give careful considera- Mr. Clydesdale was appointed, lie apparentl 'y tion to the alteration of the Constitution. I was assured that the appointment was in listened with great interest to Mr. Nichol- artier, so that wijatever happens, in no cir- son'., remarks. There is no doubt he put the cumstances whatever must he bie allowed to position clearly and concisely before mem- suiffer financial or other loss. For that reason bers, and I stron,;ly support his remarks. I will support Clause 2 wvhich. if passed, Mr. Holmes said that the law courts should will enable Mr. Clydesdale to continue to decide this matter before the, Government is occupy his position onl the Commission until called upon to pay any penalty that might a date to be fixed. Clause .3. however, is anl- be inflicted upon 'Mr. Clydesdale if he should other matter. To alter the Constitution in lose the action; but I think Mr. Holmes lost 1970 1970[COUNCIL.] sight of tile fact that the fault does not lie aetutur- inl anl honorary aaityli tile run- With Alr' Clydesdale. He certainly would ning of lotteries. It was my' opinioni that have to stand for his seat again if it were the then Minister would very likely select proved in the court that he had accepted aun those two gentlemen to act onl the commiis- offee of profit under the Crown, sion it they' were available. lion. Sir Edward Wittenoom: How manyv Hon. G. Fraser: Youi would have been people do you know who are holding their .suirprised if it had been otherwise. positions illegally? Hlon. J. 'fU MAClI ARILANE: Always Hon. H. V. PLESSE : I did tnt say that supposing- it was not considered an office any people were. I did say that the Chief of profit unider the Crowni. I ani not !onl- Secretary explained to-day that possibly, cerned about that. That is a miatter for the there are many, people in business who to- Giovernument and thle members of the Coim- day are dealing with the Government and miission. They were too experieiiced to ac- must he accepting the Government's money cept one titan's -word. They kniew thalt the illegally'. seats inl Parliament of th ose who were Hon. R. H. Harris: If a member comn- affected would he in jeopardy and were mnitted such a breach of the Constitution Act content to take time advic that ally his seat would become vacant. experienced imiember would accept. I be- Hon. H7. V. lPIESSE : Yes. While I shall lieve the Government thought theyV were support thle Bfill, ] reserve thle right to getting the best advice, and thot the inem. oppose Clause ~3when we reach the Coin- bets comicernied thought they were quiite stile ullittee stage. M.Clydesdale has cairried out( in taking these positions. There is a me- his duties as a muemlber of thle Commission in 8pomtsibility attached to Parliainoct. We ate a thoroughly competent mannter and so have nssuinn that these positions ate offics of the other menmbers of thle Commis.sion. They profit under the Crown, but the facts seem aire to be congratulated onl the economical to point to the contrary. We are, however, running of thle lotteries. 'rThe fact that time discussing the matter front the basis of an cost is only four and a half per cent. above office of profit umtdetr the Crowit. The exist- sellers' costs is, inl mly opinlion, absolute ing Act will terminafte at the end of Decent- proof that the Comimission is not a Govern- her. Parliainit could well protect the work mnent instrumentality, hecause I have never that has already beeni (lone by allowing it to heard of a. Governmen t ist iinert ality tha~it continlue until thte cttd of Diecenther. Tite has been run tit such a low cost. Mlembers defendant could then decide whether lte should lend their support to retaining Mr. would reitaimn a maember of Parliament or a Clydesdale's services on the Commission. meimber of thie Commission. Hon. E. H, .Iaris: UJp to date thereC is HON. J. M. MACFARLANE (Metro- nto defendant. politai-Subittbian) [7-42]: Thme Bill biefore Honl. J. AT. MIACFABLNNE: Rfe will le us is very important, and should not be the defendant when the ease is btefore time treated as a patty measure. A question of court. principle is involve'd. When the Lotteries Hont. G. Fraser: if there is ito def endant, Bill was before us I thought -we were doing- Mr. Holmes's ease falls to the ground. the right thing by placing lgtteries: under 11it. J. 31. MACFARLANE: The liomi. proper control. -Before thtan, lotteries weic mewmher iii question is wrapped up in this under police control, and tile methods of con- work, and he could do it itt ait honiomrr dueting them, in mny opinion, were some- capacity and remagin a member of this Ciant- whalt questionable. Costs were* not prtOletly ber. supervised, and speaking generally, it looked Hion. E. H. Ha rris, You itean that rime as if the lotteries mlight become a public other mtembhers of the Comittisskum would lie scandal. When it was suggested that lot- paid but not this one. teries should he controlled by a commission litn. J, Al1.MNACFARLANE: A precedent appointed -by Parliament, I gave tile sug- for that is afforded by our having1.1 am Hon- gestion my support. At that timec it wuas orary Minister in this Citamber. not known who were to be the commissioners, lion. E. 1 1 harris: 'Is hie not paid by his3 although it -was well known that two meit- Colleagues? hers, of Parliament, experienced in time con- Hll. .1. TA. MIACPA RLANE: 1 do not duct of lotteries, had for sonic time been know. [16 NO1VEMBER, 1933.]

lRon. J. J. Holmes: To be paid by the position, the wider dio thle ramifications%of Crown and by your colleagues are two dif- it seem to be. Probably every member of ferent matters. Parliament has been guilty ii] some way, if Hon. J. M. IIACFAR.LANE: The Hoti- the interpretations that have been placed orary 'Minister carries out the functions of upon the Constitution arc correct. It has a Mvinister without losing his position in been said that the Constitution is sacred. I Parliament. If that is possible in the case am as jealous of it as any niember, but I of a member of Parliament, it should hie believe even the Constitution is occasionally possible in the case of a member of thle Corn- open to review, At a recent referendum nuission. I am prepared to sup port the Bill nilny people in this State asked for a re- to protect Air. Clydesdale in. the event of view of the Federal Constitution, wichl has his being proved to be in the wrong, but I been in operation for over 30 years. The do not feel disposed to support it any f urther people believe that in the course of time it than that. It is reprehensible that any memt- lies become necessary, to effect certain altera- her of Parliament should run the risk of tions. The samne th ing applies to our Con- being questioned as to his bona fides by asso- stitution. T understand it has not been ciating himself with anything in the shape altered for 4.1 years. Some four 'years after of an office. of profit. I support M-r. Holmes the Constitution received thle Royal Assent. in his endeavour to keep up the status two eminent members of the Bar pointed of Parliament and of our courts. These are out serious anomarlies in it. The Constitu- thle bulwarks of our social life, and should tion should be reviewed. One anomaly was be kept on as high a pinnacle as possible referred to by M1r. Cornell, namely, the pro- so that there may not he a breath of sus- ceditre necessary for a member coaling fresh picion against anyone associated with them from the elections, and belonging to in an executive capacity. We must always the party in power, which party had have faith in them so that our social life may come, with a mandate fronm the lpeople run on lines of peace and harmony. If those to rio certain things, and upon accepting, lines are once broken down we shall ha-ve a portfolio having to go before thle discontent and disturbances for all time. I electors usually a month after having fin- am not prepared to subscribe to anything ished his election campaign. I canl see no that will lead to such a state of affairs. sense in that. YHon. E,. H. HON. W. 3. MANN (South-West) Harris: Was it not justified inl the ease of the Morgans [8.501 : I congratulate the Chief Secretary Ministry? upon his very concise statement. Those of Ron. W. J. ANN: That may he so. if us u-ho are comparatively new to parlia- there has been a case where it has been jus- mentary procedure must regard it as an tified, there have been many where it has illuminating statement, and one that placesi been superfluous. The Government should this unfortunate position. inl a light that bring downi a Bill to amend the Constitution makes it easy to grasp the situation. Mly Act. first conclusion as to the proper way to deal Hon. G. WV. Mliles: Not at all. with this matter is much the same as that Hon. WV.J. MANN: T. am entitled to my which has been enunciated by Mr. Holmnes. opinion. Such procedure is superfluous. Our When the Mitchell Government made these forefathers did not have a monopoly of the appointments they knew there was some brains of the world. risk attached to them. A clause was in- Hon. J. M. Macfarlane: They were pretty serted in the first Bill purporting to pro- sound. tect members of Parliament who accepted a Hon. W. J. MTANN: They were pretty position on the Lotteries Commission. Ap- weak in niany cases. parently some legal advice was then ten- Hon. J. Nicholson: The Constitution Act dered, which the Government considered was is a monument to their ability. sound, and the clause was taken out. It Hon. W. J. MMNNq: That is not to say it appears that Parliament has made a mis- is perfect and must last forever. The take, in which ease it is its duty to rectify economic position in the world to-day cannot that and prevent anyone concerned from be- be compared with what it was 40 years ago. ing penalised. 'Varied opinions have been We are living in a period of rapid evolu- expressed as to whether or not this is anl tion. If. there is a disability that requires office of profit. The further I examine the to be remedied, it should he remedied. 1972 1972[ASSEMBLY.] Hon. J. Cornell: You can get a revised tcowgilative sembip, version of the Bible. Ron. W. J. MANN: Yes. We often find Tirsdcry, 161h,. Novrembter, 1933. revised versions of members' opinions in the same session, if not in the same sitting of the PAGE House. Parliament thinks it has made a Questions: Orchard Inspectors, transport . .. 1972 Sustenance workers, compenation paYMeat.. 1.972 mistake. Annual Estimates:. Report, Coin. of Ways and mleans 1973 ConceraB, report ...... 1973 Hon. G. W. Miles: Not Parliament but Bills:S. Lotteriestt Tradintg (Control) Act Amendment (No. 2),lB 1973 Fremantle City Council Lands Act Amendmzent, the Government. 1973 the duty of Permanent Reserve (A4,1102), 2n'., orn.reporti 1973 Hion. W. J, MANN: It is Reserves, 2it 1975 Parliament to rectify it. I am not concerned Forests Act Amendment, returned 1970 Metropolitan Whoe Milk Act Amendment, about persons or about the Lotteries Comn- Council's amendments 1970 Motions: Fruit fly pest 1977 nussion, We should pass the second reading 1977 of the Bill, extend the operations of the Lotteri Comison, Position of Members of Par- 1978 Act to December, 1934, and suggest that the Bees Act, to disallow regulation...... 1979 Government should bring down legislation waking it clear and definite as to what does tonstitnto an office of profit. It is due to The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at ever,y member and to the country that this 4.30 pim., and react prayers. should be done, and T do not think any ex- ception could be taken to it. With a little alteration Clause 2 could be made to fit thle QU ESTION-ORC HARD INSPECTORS, whole position. The door should not be TRANSPORT. thrown wide open for any member of Parlia- 3Mr. SAMPSON asked thle Minister tot ment to be appointed to an office of profit, Agrioulture-I, WVhat is the method ad- but in this instance I am prepared to protect opted by the department to lprovide for the member who finds himself in an emnbar- transport of district inspectors to orchard rassing position. In Committee my vote will properties? 2, Are inspectors of orchard he given against Clause 3. districts crantped or limited is) their work On motion by the Honorary Minister de- in any way because of limitation of funds bate adjourned. for transport purposes? 3, Where railway transport is nion-esistent, or where its use would involve loss of time, do the de- BILL-METROPOITAN WHOLE MILIK partinent's arrangements provide for the ACT AMENDMENT. use of motor 'buts facilitiesq Assembly's Mlessagye. The MINISTER 'FOR ACRWCUlTURE replied: 1, Inspectors Use lotor ears for Message from the Assembly received and which they receive a mileage allowance. read notifying that it had agreed to the 2, Thle expenditure Of eaLCh inlspctor, hay- amendments made by the Council. ing regard to efficiency is, of course, kept within reasonable limits. 3, -Motor buses4 Tlouse adjourned at 8 p.m. are used only in cases of emnergency.

QUESTION-SUSTENANCE WORKERS. Compensation Pay-ments. Mr. RAPHAEL asked the 'Minister for Employmient, 1, Is he aware that when sts- tenance workers are injured, compensation payments are withheld for as long as six weeks? 2, Will he make arrangements to see that their wives and children are pro- vided with sustenance until insurance is paid? Thle MINISTER FOR EMPLOYME11'NT replied: 1, 1 am aware that some delay has