Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 2 November 1911

Senator SAYERS (Queensland) . - Will the Minister state his objection to the omission of the words " It shall be the duty of " from sub-sections 1 and 2 of proposed section 61c? I cannot see what good their retention can do, and certainly their omission would make the provisions clearer and plainer. At present they tell persons what is their duty. I think that every man has an idea of what his duty as an elector is, and he does not care to have a lecture addressed to him in an Act of Parliament. The Minister will not accept an amendment from this side. He has simply stated that these words are in the provision, and must be carried. I ask him if he really thinks that there is any danger in omitting them? I am sure that no one on this side wishes to lead him into a trap. I do not wish to take any course which would weaken the Bill. In fact, I think that this clause would appear much stronger to an ordinary person if the suggested amendment were made. Surely the Government are not going to take up the stand that, no matter what amendments may be proposed, it shall not be made. The Minister recognises, I think, that the words objected to are not required.

Senator Millen - He admits that.

Senator SAYERS - I think the Minister sees that. There has been an error in draftsmanship, and it should be corrected. In the introductory words of the clause there was a verbal error, and the Minister called attention to it.

Suggest corrections