Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 23 August 1906

Senator DRAKE (Queensland) .-- I may point out that sub-clause 2 does not refer to a person at all. It only refers to a contract, and apparently has reference to the contract dealt with in sub-clause 1. As I previously pointed out, it. appears to me that a contract could not be made in contravention of an Act which did' not exist. Therefore, a contract made in the future must be referred fo. But seeing that the Minister thinks that a contract made before the passage of the Bill might be voided, it is surely only prudent to insert a word to make it perfectly sure that the interpretation of the clause shall be that which the Senate desires to put upon it. The suggestion to insert the word " wilful " before " intent " affords no reason why we should not insert another word which is obviously necessary to prevent a misunderstanding. There is a difference of opinion, as to whether the clause as it stands is retrospective or not. Surely it is better to clear up the matter by inserting "hereafter." That would make it quite clear that contracts made before the passing of the Bill would not be voided.

Suggest corrections