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 STOKES (Maribyrnong) .- I certainly have not spoken twice and I would very much like to say a few words on this matter. I am amazed to hear the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) introduce this argument as a reason for not accepting the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth), dealing with the personnel to constitute the tribunal. The honorable member merely suggests that one of them should have certain qualifications. Sub-clause (2.) refers to an application by consent of both parties to have a matter heard before a single presidential member. This is the normal procedure that is followed in courts. By consent, a case can be heard before a single judge. However, this can have nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the tribunal and the calibre of its personnel. Why the Attorney-General cannot accept the amendment, I fail to see.

Suggest corrections