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, 1 December 1965

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar) . - I would say with some regret, because in these matters I always like to follow legal advice, that I do not quite follow my friend the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Gibson) on this matter. He said a moment ago that if we were to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth)-

Mr Buchanan - No, the statement of the honorable member for Maribyrnong.

Mr WENTWORTH - If we were to accept the statement of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes) we would have to have a judge experienced in being run down before he could hear a running down case. If he is right, why the devil did we pass clause 10 in its present form, because in it we state that the lay members of the tribunal must have business experience? I should have thought that the amendment states explicitly the kind of thing that would be done anyway. If it is good enough to have members with business experience on the tribunal it is good enough to have them on the divisions. If the Government intends this clause to operate, what does it lose by accepting the amendment put forward by the honorable member for Isaacs? I would think that we would gain. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) will explain why he proposes to accept or reject the honorable member's amendment.

Suggest corrections