Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Friday, 10 November 1905


Senator MILLEN - -What is the good of the Senate if the mere fact that the other House has agreed to the title is to settle the question?


Senator Playford - Oh, no; it does not settle the question.


Senator MILLEN - According to the Minister, it does, or his argument means nothing. "We ought to consider the question of the title on its merits, and without any regard to the fact that two gentlemen outside have decided that the best title has been chosen.


Senator Playford - Let the honorable senator suggest a better title.


Senator MILLEN - The first thingwe have to do is to show that " Commerce Act" is not a correct title. The Minister has admitted that the title is faulty, and that he is not satisfied with it. Instead of scouting, suggestions for the improvement of the title, he ought to work with us in our endeavour to design a better one. Surely " Commerce Act " does not define the purpose of -the Bill. It cannot be said to deal with commerce in the larger sense of the term; certainly not in the sense in which the word is used in the Constitution. "Trade Descriptions Act," to whatever objection it may be open, is a verv much more appropriate title for the Bill, because all through" it sets out: that its purpose is to secure that there shalT be no false trade descriptions, and, in clauses 7 and n, that the descriptions shalT tally with those prescribed bv the Minister. The Bill has nothing to do with commerce as I understand the meaning of that term, but it has everything to do with the marks which are placed on goods for the purposes of commerce. The Minister is treating the amendmentin too light a spirit, I think that it ought to be adopted.







Suggest corrections