Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Tuesday, 14 November 1905


The PRESIDENT - The reasons given for dissenting from the ruling of the Chairman of Committees, as read by the Chairman, are no doubt thoroughly valid, but they do not seem to me to apply. It is quite true that the title of the Bill is not the test. The title of this Bill as read a second time is stated in the first clause -

This Act may be cited as the Commerce Act 1905.

That title has been altered, to " Commerce, Trade Descriptions, Act." But that, to my mind, has nothing to do with the question. Whatever you call the Bill, and whateverthe title is, it remains the same Bill, and its subjectmatter remains the same. The Committee might strike out the present title and call the Bill a FraudulentTrade Marks Bill. Nevertheless, the subject-matter would be just the same. I agree with the Chairman of Committees, and think that his ruling is right.

In Committee :

Senator MACFARLANE(Tasmania).I move -

That after the word " place," line 4, the following words be inserted, " Provided in regard to the goods entered for export, that such officer has good reason to believe that they are fraudulently marked or described."

It has been urged in favour of this Bill that it is a measure to prevent fraud. I think we all agree that; we cannot do better than have inspection where there is any reason to suspect fraud. ButI contend that if there is no reason whatever to suspect fraud there is no reason to inspect for export. In the case of goods imported there is undoubtedly reason for inspection, but we are dealing with goods to be consumed by foreigners. Arewe. going to hamper the small producers so seriously as this clause will do when there may be no reason to suspect that there is anything wrong with ai shipment ? The officer should have "good reason to believe," in the words of the Immigration Restriction Act, before he takes action.


Senator Playford - So he would have; but there is no reason for saving so in the Bill.







Suggest corrections