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, 1 August 1906
Page: 2170

Mr McCAY (Corinella) .- I am not prepared off-hand to agree with the Minister's claim that this provision substantially follows the lines of the Imperial Act. Certainly, the section in the Imperial statute is rather peculiar in its phraseology. It reads -

If a registered design is used in manufacture in a foreign country, and is not used in this country- the words "used in manufacture" not being repeated. It seems difficult to speak of " using a design " except in connexion with manufacture, but when we find that the words " in manufacture " are used in the first part of the section, and omitted from the second, we are justified in believing that a Court would probably hold that the Legislature intended to make some difference between those two parts.

Mr Groom - I do not think so.

Mr McCAY - I think that the Court would seek to ascertain if there was a difference in meaning between the two terms. Consequently, the Minister's claim that he is following English legislationhas scarcely been established. But the main question at issue is as to whether this clause is reasonable. I must confess that a person who is manufacturing abroad, and sending his articles to Australia has not any very strong claim to our protection in the matter of his design. If he wishes a quid pro quo he had better give the quo before he' accepts the quid, or, at any rate, within a reasonable time after he has received it. Of course, the Patents Act provides similar - though not by any means identical - protection to the of articles which are manufactured abroad. Certainly, if there be a choice between the clause as it stands, and no such provision, I shall support the clause. At the same time, I think that the Minister might reasonably consider whether in the cases which have been raised, the clause would not operate unfairly -to those who arte1 sending into Australia goods which are manufactured abroad. I have no overwhelming love for foreign manufacturers as against local manufacturers, but, at the same time, I have no desire to see injustice done. In conferring benefits upon Australians we ought to see that we do not inflict injustice upon others.

Suggest corrections