Perhaps it would be well to explain to Senator Bennett, who was not present at our last sitting, that there were two gentlemen present then who desired to put some matters before the Committee from the point of view of the Incorporated Law Society. The Committee decided, on that occasion, to adjourn formally and subsequently to have a conference with the gentlemen who were in attendance. The Committee conferred with the gentlemen in question and a number of amendments and points were discussed. Nothing was actually done at that meeting of the Committee, although a number of matters were discussed.
SECTION 1.
Question put: " That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I prepared the amendments on the Order Paper and sent them to the Attorney-General for his consideration. It was only to-day that he was able to let me have the amendments which he considered necessary to achieve the objects sought by my amendments, as printed on the Order Paper. I propose to ask the Committee for leave to move the amendments sent me by the Attorney-General in lieu of the amendments printed on the Order Paper in my name. It was not my fault that these amendments were not available earlier. I did my best, but the Easter holidays intervened and the draftsman was absent for a couple of days. It would probably save time if I were to explain all the amendments on this particular amendment.
May I take it that the object of the amendments of the Attorney-General is the same as the object of your own amendments—namely, to extend the operation of the Bill to administration?
That is what I was going to deal with.
Otherwise, we might want to examine the amendments of the Attorney-General.
If any question arises, we can easily adjourn the consideration of the point. The effect of the amendments down in my name (which were not considered the best way of dealing with the matter), and of the Attorney-General's amendment, would be to include bodies corporate, with individuals, as being persons or bodies who could be appointed administrators by the Court, subject to the existing law as to the persons or bodies who can properly be appointed as administrators. The effect of these amendments is comparatively small, because it would be only where the corporate body was, under the existing law, the right person to be appointed administrator that the Court could appoint it. Anything further than that would be quite outside the scope of this Bill and would really be a matter for Government, because it would change the whole question of probate law as to the right of persons to be appointed administrators. The effect of these amendments which, I think, are desirable—the Attorney-General agrees—will be to provide that where, under the existing law, a body corporate is the proper person to be appointed an administrator, it will be possible to so appoint it, if the Bill becomes law. I am informed that that will not occur very often. The most likely case would be where the next-of-kin—the law is somewhat complicated and I will not attempt to explain it—or the right person under the law to take out administration was residing elsewhere and applied to the Court to appoint a person on his behalf. If he chose to apply for a corporate body to be appointed in his place, this Bill would make it possible for that corporate body to act. There might be other cases where the corporate body would be, under the existing law, the right person to act as administrator, but these cases would be very few and far between, in the view of the Attorney-General. I will not, therefore, move the amendments in the Order Paper in my name. In lieu of those. I will move the amendments which have been sent me by the Attorney-General. There are no amendments suggested by the Attorney-General to Section 1 and I do not move the three amendments to that section which stand in my name.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move:
Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—
2.—(1) Where the proper person or one of the proper persons to receive a grant of letters of administration is a body corporate, the High Court may grant such letters of administration to such body corporate by its corporate name either, as the circumstances may require, alone or jointly with the other proper person or persons.
" (2) A body corporate to whom letters of administration are granted under this Act shall, subject to the rules contained in or made under the Act, have the same rights and be subject to the same duties under or in respect of such letters of administration as if it were an individual."
The other amendments which I shall move are consequential on this amendment.
The amendment which you have moved gives the purport of the amendments which originally stood in your name?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
New Section ordered to stand part of the Bill.