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, 8 December 1960

Mr HAYLEN (Parkes) .- I think the committee is deeply touched at the picture drawn by the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) of sneaking through the darkened corridors at midnight with his little three-line message to tell the people of Australia that they were going to give some, people 40 quid a week extra. The Attorney-General said, " I do not want to be called a thief in the night ". Of course not; he did not want to be a Cinderella either. He was Prince Charming to the judges.


Order! Reference to 2 o'clock in the morning could very well be discontinued. Statements in that respect have been made freely by Opposition members and they have been replied to. I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the clause before the chair.

Mr HAYLEN - There is only one thing to be said, because the committee must be wearied of this small clause which, I note, is of three lines. Since the Attorney-General has 44 amendments to the Marriage Bill and introduced 46 amendments to the Crimes Bill, I am sure that with a little contriving at 2 o'clock in the morning, he can manage this single clause. To be honest and faithful to the Australian concept of fair play as enunciated by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), the Attorney-General could do so. If there is to be retrospectivity and if you are going to pay back money to the deserving, you do not begin with the judges whether they are the high and mighty of the land or not; you begin with the indigent poor, the Australian workers and the age pensioners. No matter how much rhetoric is expended on this bill, or how much the Minister tries to wriggle from under this miserable job, the fact is that the Government is giving the benefit of retrospectivity to the wrong sector of the community. The Opposition is opposed to the clause and will vote against it.

Mr Pollard - I wish to make a personal explanation.


Order! Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepreesnted?

Mr Pollard - Yes. Earlier in the debate, I said that the judges of Australia were no less conscious of the hip-pocket nerve than anybody else. The Attorney-General (Sir

Garfield Barwick) moved that I be not further heard.


Order! The honorable member for Lalor, who persists in talking across the table, must confine himself to a personal explanation.

Mr Pollard - I beg your pardon, Sir. I

Tias deeply involved in an argument with the Attorney-General.


Order! The honorable member has no right to be involved in an argument. He will resume his seat. He has not spoken on this clause, and therefore he cannot have been misrepresented in respect of it.

Suggest corrections