- Home
- Parliamentary Business
- Senators and Members
- News & Events
- About Parliament
- Visit Parliament
Permalink
Prev
Next
Return to results list (1 results)




Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Table Of Contents


Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
-
ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- MILLEN, Edward
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- CLEMONS, John
- CHAIRMAN, The
- MILLEN, Edward
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- ST LEDGER, Anthony
- CLEMONS, John
- GIVENS, Thomas
- KEATING, John
- ST LEDGER, Anthony
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- CHAIRMAN, The
- CLEMONS, John
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- CLEMONS, John
- SAYERS, Robert
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- KEATING, John
- ST LEDGER, Anthony
- SAYERS, Robert
- Division
- CHATAWAY, Thomas
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- CHATAWAY, Thomas
- MILLEN, Edward
- ST LEDGER, Anthony
- CHATAWAY, Thomas
- VARDON, Joseph
- CHATAWAY, Thomas
- Division
- VARDON, Joseph
- MILLEN, Edward
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- ST LEDGER, Anthony
- CHATAWAY, Thomas
- MCGREGOR, Gregor
- MILLEN, Edward
- PAPER
- NORTHERN TERRITORY :
- AUDIT BILL
- ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL
- NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL
- APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL
- REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
- Adjournment
Content Window
Thursday, 15 August 1912
In Committee:(Consideration resumed from 14th August, vide page 2 131).
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 -
Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words, " be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding Fifty pounds," and inserting in their stead the words " be guilty of an offence."
Penalty : Five hundred pounds.
Amendment (by Senator McGregor) proposed -
That after the word " amended " the following words be inserted : -
(a) By inserting after the word " question " the words " relevant to the inquiry " ;
(b) By omitting the words " touching the subject-matter of the inquiry, and (c)"
Senator Sir JOSIAHSYMON (South Australia) [2.45]. - This is a very awkward and complex way of effecting an amendment. Before one can understand the proposed amendment, he has to put into the principal Act words which in themselves are unintelligible. Would it not be very much better to repeat the words of section 6 of that Act as it proposed to amend it, in this clause?
