Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 22 October 1914


Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia) . - I hope the Government will stand to their measure. I do not know why honorable senators should want to alter the Bill in any way. "We are told that this is a highly technical Bill. But the proceedings under this Bill will be no more technical than those under the Arbitration Act, under which the President, with the approval of the GovernorGeneral, makes the rules, or under the Services and Execution of Processes Act, in connexion with which the making of the rules is left to the Judges of the Supreme Court. To all intents and purposes .this bankruptcy measure is going to follow the Services and Execution of Processes Act, because it, too, is to be applied by State officials.


Senator Keating - Exercising Federal jurisdiction.


Senator GUTHRIE - So they are under the other Act.


Senator Keating - No, they are not. They are exercising State jurisdiction in the State Court, and the Act empowers the execution of State processes outside the State.


Senator GUTHRIE - Putting that Act aside, I desire to build my argument more particularly on the Arbitration Act. The President of the Court, with the approval of the Governor-General, makes rules, and honorable senators forget that, under the Judiciary Act, we allow the Judges to make a rule to meet a particu lar case. When they find themselves in a corner, they make a rule for a particular case, and that rule need not be laid before Parliament for forty days.


Senator Bakhap - The honorable senator forgets that, in connexion with the Arbitration Act, it was argued for a time that there was no appeal from the Arbitration Court.


Senator GUTHRIE - I am speaking of the Judiciary Act. In order to overcome any particular difficulty, the High Court Justices can make a rule, and that rule may not be laid on the table of Parliament for forty days. Thus, though Parliament may see fit to annul the rule, there are forty days in which the High Court Justices can do as they like, without any control on the part of Parliament. I contend that when a rule is framed, it should be gazetted at once, and should have no validity until it is so gazetted. The whole system in regard to the making of rules and regulations needs revision. There should be some uniformity. We should not have a different method provided in every Statute.


Senator Senior - Does not the honorable senator see that, under this Bill, the rules will be made by the InspectorGeneral?


Senator GUTHRIE - In the case of rules being made by the High Court Justices, the probability is that they are drawn up by a clerk in the office, and merely have the supervision of some of the Justices - not all of them. The seven Justices cannot meet to decide on rules of procedure. Wo should trust our Crown Law officers to make the rules. Another point is that we have the AttorneyGeneral on the floor of Parliament, and can bring him to book for faulty rules. The Attorney-General is responsible to Parliament, and Parliament can deal with him. The High Court Judges cannot be dealt with in the same way. I hope we adhere to the principle of having rules and regulations framed by the Government.







Suggest corrections