I move amendment No. 1:
In line 15 to delete "or otherwise".
The section itself, the definition section says:
"Business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise.
Now, the expression "or otherwise", in my view, is typical of the vagueness and the lack of clarity throughout this entire measure. Due to this lack of clarity and due to the obscurity, the Minister can assume unlimited powers. People in this business are entitled to know exactly what is meant by this definition. People who have invested their money in a business should know exactly where they stand. I cannot see that it is clear from this where they stand.
People should know when they are within the law and when they are, in fact, breaking the law. If we must have this legislation, which I am totally opposed to, we should have it clearly written into this Bill. I have said on a previous occasion that I do not care how much the Minister talks and how much he says about his intention in relation to the operation of this Bill. That is no reflection on the present Minister, as it applies to any Minister who might occupy that seat or a Minister in any other Department as well. It is quite useless for the Minister to say that his intention in relation to the carrying out of what is contained in this Bill is so and so and that he has been able to convince people he is not going to operate it in the way that is indicated across the floor of this House. I would have accepted that before I came into this House originally. I would have accepted it for some time after I came into this House but I no longer accept it because, through bitter experience, I have found it is quite useless for a Minister to say that his intention is this, that and the other because the various people who are connected with this afterwards will say that this is not in the Act.
I am not concerned with what the Minister says is his intention with regard to the interpretation of this. There must be a more accurate definition. If you take the words "or otherwise", it would mean to me that you cannot sell by auction without a licence or, in fact, that you cannot sell your own cattle in your own yard or you cannot allow your neighbour to send his cow to be sold in your yard or you cannot have a draught sale. You cannot sell a beast on the road. This could be operated to the detriment of the people who wish to sell.
I do not think that this is the Minister's intention. I do not think that this is deliberately put in here. It would not be the intention of any sane man. The words "or otherwise" should be removed from the Bill. If the Minister is bringing in a measure here it should be clearly understood but that is not the case in the Bill as it is. I have looked through various Bills quoted by the Minister here during the Second Reading speech and I find that in all those Bills the conditions are written out in detail and in language that is clearly defined. People know well in advance where they stand but here in this Bill we have this vagueness and lack of clarity not only in relation to this section but throughout the entire Bill.