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, 26 November 1974
Page: 2752

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) -I rise to say that this is a totally unsatisfactory way, in my judgment, of dealing with a very important point.

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - You can always vote on it, senator. It is a suggestion in an attempt to get a consensus amongst certain senators. We are not attempting to do anything else.

Senator GREENWOOD - I must say that it is a pity that the Committee could not go away and deliberate on this instead of doing it across the floor of the Senate. Here we have had a proposal put forward which on the face of it is understandable. Now in this interchange the words 'not exceeding six in number' are to be inserted. I know that the number six is not a considered term. I do not think the Attorney-General proposed that the number should be six. Someone just suggests that the number be six. Is that a proper basis on which to decide what the size of the Family Court will be? It seems to be a most arbitrary way of doing this.

Senator James McClelland (NEW SOUTH WALES) - It does not decide that at all.

Senator GREENWOOD - It is suggested that six should be appointed. Why six? Why not four? Why not twelve? That is one aspect. A second aspect is that it alters the whole purport of the amendment- it may be that is what is intendedbecause it means judges are to be prescribed by regulation in batches of six.

Suggest corrections