Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 9 August 1906

Senator KEATING (TASMANIA) - Any abstinence or my part yesterday from raising objections to the new title which was proposed to be introduced was motived by no other consideration than a desire to expedite the passage of the Bill.

Senator Millen - Does the same reason animate the honorable senator now?

Senator KEATING - That is the very reason why I shall not speak at length.

Senator Millen - Then why bring the matter forward again?

Senator KEATING - On the first occasion honorable senators had every opportunity to listen to the argumentspro and con; a vote was taken; and by 15 votes to 12 it was decided to retain the original title of Eminent Domain Act. Yesterday Senator Symon moved again to strike out " Eminent Domain " for the purpose of inserting " Lands Acquisition," but in a very much smaller Committee, and without saying anything on behalf of the new title which he submitted.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Certainly I addressed the Committee at length: on the subject more than once.

Senator KEATING - I think not when moving the amendment.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Nothing of the kind.

Senator Mulcahy - He induced some honorable senators to change their minds.

Senator KEATING - That may be so. Yesterday I" refrained from speaking, because I did not wish to repeat the arguments I had previously used; and it was decided by 11 votes to9 to substitute " Lands Acquisition " for " Eminent Domain.'

Senator Best - As against a vote of15 to 12 on the first occasion.

Senator KEATING - Yes. How did this matter come up for consideration yesterday ? At a certain stage I moved for the reconsideration of several clauses, and when Senator Symon moved to include clause 1, I offered no opposition., and accordingly it was included. If my recollection serves me rightly, I do not think that when he moved his amendment he gave any reasons in support of it. I did not speak either, and a division resulted in the reversal of the previous vote in a Committee of 20, as opposed to a Committee of 27 on the first occasion.

Suggest corrections