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
Tuesday, 14 June 1904


Mr GLYNN (Angas) - I suggest that the amendment be not passed. It is a mistake to interfere with what is really scientific drafting. The words of the Constitution give jurisdiction only to the extent' of the words used, and right through the Bill up to the present we have avoided extending the meaning of particular phrases used in the interpretation clause.


Mr Watson - The words which I suggest are used in clause 26, which gives the Court jurisdiction to " prevent and settle " disputes. That is in reference to all matters which come before the Court in the ordinary course, and the Attorney-General thinks it wise to repeat the words in another division of the Bill which has reference to another class of disputes.


Mr GLYNN - The clause is all right without the amendment, seeing that the meaning of industrial dispute is prescribed by the Constitution. To insert the words " prevention and settlement " will not make the clause any better, but may introduce confusion, seeing that in other portions of the Bill the words are not repeated. Inasmuch as the words in the clause are quite comprehensive, anything which may be added is amplification, andi it is a mistake to attempt to amplify them in any way. Indeed the amendment does not really amplify the clause, but merely repeats what is already provided in the interpretation clause.


Mr WATSON - I shall put before the Attorney-General - who is 'temporarily absent - the view suggested by the honorable member for Angas. If the AttorneyGeneral does not see his way clear to recommit the clause, I shall see that it is recommitted, if honorable members desire.







Suggest corrections