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
Thursday, 2 December 1965


Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce) (AttorneyGeneral) . - The Government will not accept the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). The Government cannot accept the amendment because it seeks to do what was sought by the earlier amendment which was negatived. The amendment still requires the publication of the interest-


Mr Wentworth - No. It does not.


Mr SNEDDEN - The honorable gentleman says that it requires only publication to the parties. If publication to the parties is not publication, I am unable to understand what publication means. Suppose there are 45 parties to an agreement, or even only 5 parties to an agreement. If you go to the five parties and say: "This person has an interest", the five parties will say: " What is his interest? ". There is no point in only telling the parties that he has an interest. To do so is meaningless unless you state the interest. If anything is to be achieved you must state the whole of the interest. At that point 5 or 45 people are in possession of the details of the interest. There is no way by which those parties can be required to observe any confidence about the matter. The consequence is that the Government cannot accept the honorable member's amendment. There is no logic in it.

Additionally, I do not think the Committee could accept the amendment because the Committee has already negatived an amendment which sought to do exactly what this amendment seeks to do. The earlier amendment sought to provide that a member other than a presidential member of the Tribunal could disclose his interest to the parties - publicly, as it was put. That amendment was negatived. Now what is proposed is that a member other than a presidential member should disclose his interest to the President, who in turn should disclose it to the parties. As I have pointed out, disclosure to the parties is the same as making public. This amendment seeks exactly what was sought in the other amendment because if it is carried there will be a public disclosure of interests of the member of the Tribunal. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to rule whether the honorable member's amendment is in order in that it seeks to do the same thing as was sought by the earlier amendment which was negatived.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock - In my view the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Mackellar seeks to do substantially what was sought by the earlier amendment which was negatived by the Committee. Accordingly I rule that the amendment moved by the honorable member is out of order.

Motion (by Mr. Wentworth) proposed -

That the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. (Mr. Wentworth having submitted his objection to the ruling in writing) -







Suggest corrections