There is merit in much of what is contained in the bill passed by the Senate a week ago to amend the existing Registration of Business Names Act.

For instance, as a concession to the technological advancement of the world, the bill allows the electronic filing of documents and other information relevant to the registration of a business name and will allow the appropriate minister to establish the sales threshold, hopefully one that makes economic sense, at which a business must register.

It is also understandable that the new law substantially increases the penalties for individuals and companies that fail to fulfil their obligations under the law. Time and inflation have long made nonsense of the old fines.

But it is also the case with governments that they find it difficult to resist the urge to overreach. It has happened in fundamental and dangerous fashion in this law, to which, unfortunately, not enough attention has been paid, except by Opposition members of the Senate last week, who put up a valiant, but unsuccessful rearguard fight against the Government's majority.

Our grave concern is the insertion into the law of a new Section 16 (a), which states that a firm, individual, or trader whose business name is not registered in accordance with the act "shall not issue any advertisement in relation to the business of that firm, individual or trader."

Advertisement is defined to mean "any form of communication put out ... to notify the public of the business of that person or the products of that business." This suggests that word of mouth promotion of the business, the printing of flyers or advertising by newspaper, radio, television or the Internet are out. Mr. A. J. Nicholson, the Attorney-General and Justice Minister, argues that this is to protect consumers from unregistered businesses, although precisely from what, he does not say.

What we are concerned about is what Mr. Nicholson and the architects of this provision will leave unprotected; that is, the right of free speech, the exercise of which is part of what advertising allows. And, since free speech and its attendant right to hold and exchange ideas are the critical foundation of democracy, it is not something to be trifled with. Limitation on free speech should be in the most extreme circumstances, for the overwhelming public good and to protect the rights and reputations of others. Precluding of advertising by a firm or a trader whose name is not properly registered, in the absence of proof that its advertising poses grave danger to the public, does not meet our public interest test.

Indeed, there are other sections of this law under which the authorities have the power to take action against unregistered firms, individual or traders. Moreover, there are other laws which protect consumers from the consequences of false and misleading advertising and which set product standards and warrantee guidelines. So there is no shortage of appropriate legislation in the arsenal of the authorities without them having to resort to this potentially dangerous intrusion into the right to free speech.

We suspect that the authorities see the capacity to limit the right to advertising as a soft option; a way of indirect enforcement without going through the difficult and tedious job of rolled-up sleeve regulation. But, that is likely, in the end, to cost too much.

The Governor-General should not assent to this bill. Parliament needs to revisit this legislation.