There is again a small point I should like to mention. We refer in Section 5 to " a company limited by shares ", " a company limited by guarantee " and " an unlimited company " in that order. When we come to Section 12 we start off with " an unlimited company " and then " a company limited by guarantee ". I wonder whether it might be clearer if we kept the same order, as in Section 5, in the rest of the Bill. It is probably from the 1908 Act.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed : " That Section 12 stand part of the Bill ".
Does the Senator suggest that the order might be changed to that in subsection (2) of Section 5 ?
Yes, just to keep the same sequence right through the Bill.
This section involves some changes from the existing law particularly in relation to unlimited companies and companies limited by guarantee. I think that is probably why " an unlimited company " is mentioned first in subsection (1) and " a company limited by guarantee " in subsection (2). There is no reason why a company limited by guarantee should receive precedence over an unlimited company.
I am not suggesting that. I am only suggesting that we keep the order as in Section 5.
In Section 5 we started off with " a company limited by shares ". There is no mention at all in Section 12 of a company limited by shares so we cannot have precisely the same order.
In Section 5 you have " a company limited by shares ", " a company limited by guarantee " and " an unlimited company" but in Section 12 you have " an unlimited company " before " a company limited by guarantee." I will leave it with the Minister.
I gather the Senator is not making an issue of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.