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
Wednesday, 1 December 1965


Mr BUCHANAN (McMillan) .- I, too, find this reference to a judicial appointment rather difficult to understand. There is no reference to it in the Bill itself. The clause which refers to the President of the Tribunal says only that he shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing. Surely, if it is intended that this is to be a judicial appointment, it should be written into the Bill that this is so. I cannot understand how judges will find time to handle the colossal amount of business that could come their way under this legislation. I have always thought that our courts were rather cluttered. Will the judges take two salaries - a remuneration for sitting on the Tribunal and their salary as judges? These are points that need clarification. This is one aspect in which the Bill has fallen down. We need clarification of the intention of the legislation. Surely industry and business are entitled to know what they will be confronted with.

I would like to refer also to the matter raised by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) as to whether the tribunals are to be appointed one in each State. Are they to be itinerant? More particularly, how many members will there be? If, in the opinion of the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden), it is no longer necessary to have full time appointments and if they are to be, instead, part time appointments, how many do we need? What is to be the set up? Or does the Attorney-General expect that not many examinations will be made and, consequently, that it will be necessary to call in somebody only once a month to do an odd job?







Suggest corrections