In various countries where ‘defence’ alone was entered as an entry in the federal list, they have taken this matter to a court of law. Differences arose and the courts had to interpret the word ‘defence’. Here I have got a case (Australian Bread Case 21 C. L. R. 433) where Griffith C. J. said the word ‘defence’ includes all acts of such kind as may be done in the United Kingdom either under the authority of Parliament or under the Royal Prerogative of the Realm. Among others it includes preparations for war in time of peace, and any such action in time of war as may be taken for the successful prosecution of the war and the defeat of the enemy. Sir, this explanation was given, or this decision was arrived at after elaborate discussion in a court of law. Should we once again go through this travail? I think, Sir, if the Honourable the mover of, the amendment has no, objection to these items being there, the inclusion of them may be allowed. The only objection is that it is not elegant. The language is not elegant. It is not a piece of literature that we are enacting here. It is a piece of law. It is better to be more specific. Wherever it is possible to avoid doubts, let, us avoid them.
