I can understand the point made by the Senator and I would be inclined to say that, in most cases, in the ordinary way I would give the reasons on which I had based my decision. But I would not like to accept the amendment for this reason. I admit that in saying this I am perhaps putting into the hands of the Senator a weapon which he can use against me in argument. There may be just one case in a hundred in which it might not be easy to give the reasons on paper. If I were asked to cite the type of case I have in mind, I confess that I would find some difficulty in citing it. I have a notion, however, that there are some such cases. While I do not want to appear to be headstrong, I think it is not a wise policy to accept amendments, not because you believe in them, but because you want to give the impression that you are meeting those who move them.
In the ordinary course of the discussions which will take place between the owner of a hatchery and the officials of the department, there is bound to result from the conversations evidence as to the reasons why the Minister will take action. It is much easier to convey these reasons in that fashion than to proceed to set them down on paper. It is because I fear that occasions would arise in which it would be desirable to revoke licences while at the same time it might be desperately awkward to state the reasons on paper, that I feel obliged to resist the amendment in this case also. It will be the practice in the ordinary way to make the possessor of the licence in most cases conversant with the reasons. It will be possible to state these reasons in writing but I do not want to be obliged to do that because, as I say, cases will arise in which that will not be possible. You are only limiting in an unreasonable degree, by an amendment of this kind, the freedom that a Minister and his Department should have in handling a very complicated problem of this nature.