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, 26 October 1910

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) . - The Minister has rested his case on one class of individuals who may be benefited. I want to put the case of a class of individuals who will be hurt by the clause as it stands. My honorable friend has quite correctly stated that if any person entered into an agreement to sell between the 1st July and 30th September, although he may not complete the transfer for months, it may be for years, he gets the concession. Let me take an extreme case. Suppose that an agreement to sell was signed on the 29th September, although it may be two years before the sale is completed, yet the seller will get the concession. But if, on the 29th June, any person made an agreement to sell, and did not complete the sale until the 1st October, he does not get it.

Senator McGregor - Quite right. He ought not to get it.

Senator MILLEN - That is where 1 differ from the Minister. The whole purpose of the clause was that if land is in process of transfer, the concession will be granted. But the Minister says now, " We ure going to hold out that concession to those who on the 29th September signed an agreement to sell, although it may take two years to transfer the land, but we will not give four months to a man who entered into an agreement to sell if he happened to sign it on the 29th June." That does not appear to me to be a reasonable and fair way of dealing with the matter. The object of the Bill is to encourage subdivision and sale. I cannot see why, if an agreement to sell was signed on the 29th June, the seller should not get exactly the same consideration as is extended to a man who signed his agreement three days later.

Suggest corrections