Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 8 May 1973
Page: 1829


Mr VINER (Stirling) - I am grateful for the Minister recognising the sharp and agile mind that I have. Not having been very long in this House, I notice how percipient the Minister is in realising my attributes so soon after I have arrived. But I also have the capacity to read, which no doubt comes from that sharp and agile mind he has recognised, and I notice on reading the Minister's own Bill that proposed sub-section (2b) of section 5 of the principal Act is the one shifting the onus of proof to which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred. I notice also that that proposed sub-section refers specifically to paragraph (c) of sub-section (1a), and paragraph (c) of sub-section (1a) happens to be one of the proposals of the Minister in his Bill. The Minister says that his proposal under proposed sub-section (2b ) is a specific defence to the offence created by proposed sub-paragraph (c) of sub-section (1a) of section 5. I notice the Minister nodding; so he follows what I have been saying. Of course, if proposed new sub-section (2b) does what the Bill says, obviously existing subsection (4.) of section 5 does not apply.


Mr Clyde Cameron (HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Yes, it does.


Mr VINER - lt applies, of course, but it applies to other sections, and what the Minister's Bill does is specifically to provide for a special defence in the special circumstances proposed by the Bill. My having explained that to the Minister, if the Minister cannot follow it, as my colleague the honourable member for Moreton says, what it shows is simply that the Minister has not the sharp and agile mind that I have.







Suggest corrections