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, 4 December 1973
Page: 4261


Mr ENDERBY (Australian Capital Territory) (Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply) - in reply - Very briefly, the Government welcomes, for a change, the support of the Australian Country Party. I must reject the remarks which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) made in his contribution to the second reading debate. As has already been stated, the Bill was introduced in the Senate. It was subjected to considerable scrutiny by honourable senators from all parties. If the honourable member for Mackellar reads the Hansard report of the debate in the Senate he will see that a former Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, who is a well known and respected lawyer, subjected the Bill to very close examination and put forward some very responsible amendments to the Bill as it had been introduced originally by the Government. The Government readily accepted those amendments and thanked Senator Greenwood for his contribution to the debate. We accept that the Bill is in a better form now because of the speeches which were made by all the contributors to the debate in the Senate.

But the basic situation has to be stated, and it is really this: The honourable member for MacKellar seems to lose his sense of proportion when certain subjects are raised. One can understand it, because they are very emotional subjects. When it comes to the subject of foreign affairs or the question of politics, or when the word 'communism' is uttered fo him, the honourable member seems to go off the bend, so to speak, and I say that with great respect to the honourable gentleman. For example, may I test the weight of one of his criticisms. He said that the list of offences in the Schedule to the Bill was such that it was ridiculous that so many light offences were included and that people could be extradited for these trivial things. He mentioned, I think, an offence against the company law and he mentioned assault occasioning actual bodily harm; someone could assault a policeman, perhaps, or something of that sort.


Mr Wentworth - Not bodily harm. Bodily harm is not involved.


Mr ENDERBY - My recollection is that the honourable member said that someone could be-


Mr Wentworth - I draw your attention to No; 8 in the Schedule, which does not involve bodily harm. Do read the Bill. It is shocking that you do not know your own Bill.







Suggest corrections