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, 19 May 1965

Senator O'BYRNE (Tasmania) .- I think that Senator Wood is extending his argument on the authority of Parliament and the importance of bringing regulations into Parliament for discussion. The simple fact is that somewhere along the line owners of more than 20 hens who are avoiding the provisions of this legislation will have to be brought into line. They will have to be told that they must pay the levy. If persons say: " This is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of someone else who is not present ", the Minister or his agent will designate the person who is the owner. The provision reads-

An authorised person may, by instrument in writing, direct that any hens that, at any tunc while the instrument remains in force, are in the possession or control of a person but of which that person is not the owner shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be owned by that person, and the direction has effect accordingly.

I cannot understand Senator Wood's attitude in wanting such a simple thing as this to be brought before the Parliament. For the purposes of this legislation the man in possession of the poultry will be the owner. Of what use would it be to bring this matter before the Parliament? If the hens we re at Wangaratta or somewhere in the Mallee, how would we know who was the owner? How would it be possible to define by regulation who was the owner of the hens? This is entirely different from the cases that have been raised previously. I have always supported Senator Wood's argument that certain matters should be brought before the Parliament, but it would be most impractical for such a matter as this to come before the Parliament by way of regulation. There is no parallel.

Suggest corrections