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, 7 December 1965


Mr BUCHANAN (McMillan) .- In spite of the fact that we have had a battle between members in this place who belong to the legal profession, and one who has no legal knowledge at all, I would like the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) to sort out this particular clause. A serious amendment has been moved and it is one in which I have a particular interest. I, too, am very much concerned to know the answer to this problem. A Review Division has been pro vided in this legislation. It will consist, I presume, of three lawyers. They will comprise the presidential session of the Review Division. When a matter comes to them for review these three judges, who did not have anything to do with the previous case, will have to decide, not whether the decision taken was wrong, but whether there was some ground for referring the matter back for another hearing. They have no authority. They have no appellate function. The decision made by the Tribunal seems to be the operative phrase. But what are the three members of this Division for? I could understand if it were only a matter of their giving a decision as to whether or not a material error of law had been made. But there are other errors which could be made. I would like the Attorney-General to tell us what will happen if material errors of fact are made. In spite of the babbling of the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam), the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has foreshadowed a few other amendments which revolve around this point of a material error of fact. May we have a decision on this point?







Suggest corrections