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, 21 November 1974
Page: 2669

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -Might I suggest a further small refinement? I suggest that the end of the clause should now read: but failure to comply with a direction does not constitute a contempt of court.

This is in place of the words 'such a direction'. This draws a distinction between a direction and advice.

Senator Murphy - Yes, I accept that suggestion. Perhaps the honourable senator would like to move that amendment.

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - I move:

In sub-clause (4) leave out 'such'.

The CHAIRMAN - The amendment is to remove the word ' such '?

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) -Yes, just the word 'such'. I have moved that the word such' be omitted.

The CHAIRMAN - The earlier point raised by Senator James McClelland is correct. There may have been a mispronunciation by myself. Does the Committee accept that the first words are 'or advise' and on the second occasion the words are 'or advice *?

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - Could I put it like this? In the first instance the words are or advise' which is the verb. In the second instance the words are 'or advice'. This does not now arise because the contempt of the court is confined to the failure to obey a direction. Does that express the wish of all parties? That is what I understand to be satisfactory to Senator Greenwood and to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). We now have the situation where the court can direct or advise as it sees fit. In the case of disobedience of a direction only the contempt of court arises.

Senator Missen - It does not arise?

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - Yes, it does not arise.

Suggest corrections