Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 22 May 1930


Senator DALY (South Australia) (Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil) . - Having looked into this matter I agree with Senator McLachlan's conclusion. Supposing that he had framed the clause in this form, " A married woman who effects a policy upon her own life or the life of her husband may do so for her separate use ". That is exactly what the present wording means.


Senator Rae - That is so, but we do not want to give her power to insure her husband's life without his consent.


Senator DALY - She could not be prevented from insuringher husband's life unless a prohibitory clause were inserted. An examination of sub-clause 3 makes the position plain. As we are attempting to consolidate insurance laws we should be very careful that we do not include anything in this measure that may be criticized by somebody higher than an anonymous insurance agent. This clause says that a woman can insure her own life or that of her husband for her separate use. I. think that Senator McLachlan will agree that the latest judicial decisions go to show that the clause is really not necessary. In any case, it is simply declaratory, to obviate litigation. Senator Rae's amendment would not overcome the difficulty that he visualizes. A married woman could still insure her husband's life, but if he died insolvent it would be possible for the official receiver to collect the benefit that would otherwise accrue to the wife. If the honorable senator is out to protect the widow it will be better for him to allow the clause to stand in its original form.







Suggest corrections