Mr HOLDING(12.37 a.m.) —I expressed my real concern about this legislation in the course of my speech in the second reading debate. I say to the Committee that the Australian people are entitled to receive from this chamber mature concern for and sober judgment on legislation which goes to the fundamental rights and liberties of the Australian people. I think the reality is that, at twenty to one in the morning-

Mr McVeigh —You cannot even read. It is not that late.

Mr HOLDING —The Minister is candid. He admits that he cannot even read the legislation when it is this late. One other Minister has been asleep on the front bench for most of this debate. For a moment I was concerned. I thought he might be dead. I even thought the Acting Attorney-General (Mr N.A. Brown) might have to give him the kiss of life, oxygen. That could be a fate worse than death for some, I suppose.

Many points raised have not been answered. We are creating a structure which, as I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate, can be used by an Attorney-General to strike at any citizen, at any business corporation or at any political party, large or small, within the Commonwealth. I indicated that the powers that will be conferred by this legislation can be used without any difficulty at all. A Labor government could use the powers that we are now discussing to invoke an inquiry into the Liberal Party or into the National Party. I ask honourable gentlemen opposite to think about the implications of that. I do not believe that this Government should have those powers. I do not believe that any government should have those powers. Concern at these provisions has been expressed by honourable members on both sides of the chamber . Bodies such as the Victorian Bar Council and other representations from the legal profession have expressed concern about legislation which can be the subject of abuse by the executive government of the day.

From time to time I have heard, in this chamber, Ministers opposite say that they believe that certain State Attorneys-General have abused their powers. I have heard members on this side of the Chamber say that they believe the present Acting Attorney-General has abused his power. It does not matter whether the allegation is true or false. What is important is that we are adopting an inquisitorial process which is, essentially, foreign to the legal structure which goes to the essential fabric of our society. That is why this concern is being expressed. It is being expressed, I believe responsibly, from both sides of the chamber. Those are arguments that need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed with great seriousness. I do not believe-I do not want to canvass the argument that has been made by my colleague-at twenty to one in the morning that that concern is going to be addressed.

I suggest to the Leader of the House (Sir James Killen) that the proper thing in the interests of good legislation and in the interests of this Parliament is to adjourn this debate. There are members on the other side of the Chamber for whom I, as a lawyer, have profound respect. They are voicing their concern again and again and they are trying to talk to their own party. It is not a reasonable or a sensible political exercise to ramrod this legislation through in the way in which it is being ramrodded through. We will live to regret it later.

Mrs Child —Let us go home.

Mr HOLDING —It is not a question of just going home; I believe that the Government needs to look at this legislation again. I say that as someone who would vote against this type of legislation and these powers being given to a Labor government.

Mr Ruddock —You would have to resign.

Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member wants to make a joke of it because he is prepared, in his desperate attempt to climb into Cabinet, to go along with any of the provisions that are put forward and put his hand up without regard to the consequences, I leave that to his conscience. I implore the Acting Attorney- General, who is at the table, to adjourn this debate. Let the Government parties have another look at the matter and another think about it. We are coming back to this Parliament. I do not believe that continuing this debate is in the interests of this institution but, above all, it is not in the interests of the Australian people. We are talking about their rights. We are talking about their liberties. It is not in their interests that this debate continue in the way in which it is being continued. I say to the Leader of the House, who I believe cares about this institution and cares about the rights and liberties of the Australian people: 'Adjourn this debate now and allow this legislation to have the more mature consideration which I believe it so urgently, indeed desperately , needs'.