Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 23 November 1910

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Australia) .- -I think that the Committee would be wise not to accept Senator Vardon's amendment. The intention is not so much to impose extra duties on articles contained within fancy boxes, as to give protection in respect of the boxes themselves. In many instances, persons purchase boxes containing goods, not so- much because they require the goods themselves, as because the boxes appeal to their taste. A person may buy a box of chocolates with no intention of eating the sweets, but in order to obtain the box. I will admit that it is difficult to define the term " fancy." The consideration that appeals to me, however, is that it is surely possible to manufacture fancy boxes in this country. If we can give a fillip to an Australian industry we should do so. I am convinced that the taste of those who manufacturefancy boxes in this country is as good as that of box-makers in any other part of the world. This is an opportunity of giving encouragement to the box-making industry of Australia, whilst, at the same time, relieving the Department of the difficulty of determining what the word " fancy " may mean. For these reasons I shall support the schedule as it stands.

Senator ST.LEDGER (Queensland> [5-3S]- - This is said to be a departmental Bill, but the more we criticise its detailsthe more we realize that it is a great deal more than it professes to be. The Minister's explanation amounts to this : ;' Leave it to the officials to define what a fancy box is." But why should we?

Senator Needham - Can the honorable senator frame a definition?

Suggest corrections