51.
formed in any State or part of the Commonwealth"[1]. Mr Barton said[2] that the change had been made:
"So that the Commonwealth may have the power to legislate, not merely with regard to the legal status of corporations acting within the Commonwealth, but it may have power as far as it can legislate upon the general subject of these corporations, over the general subject of foreign corporations, formed in any part of a State of the Commonwealth, for the purpose of uniform legislation." (emphasis added)
Mr Higgins asked[3] whether this would give power to exclude such corporations from trading in the Commonwealth and Mr Barton replied[4]:
"Not, I think, to exclude them, but to regulate the mode in which they conduct their operations. It is for the purpose of uniformity."
116 Delegates returned to the subject on 17 April 1897. On this occasion debate focused upon what kinds of corporation should be specified in the power. Particular reference was made[5] to financial institutions. Mr Deakin, who had appeared as counsel in some of the notable prosecutions in Victoria that followed the corporate collapses of the early 1890s, pointed out[6] that Victoria had passed legislation placing "a strict limitation on the meaning of the word 'banks', excluding from it particular kinds of financial companies which had hitherto been
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 12 April 1897 at 439.
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 12 April 1897 at 439.
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 12 April 1897 at 439.
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 12 April 1897 at 439.
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 17 April 1897 at 793.
- ↑ Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, (Adelaide), 17 April 1897 at 793.
