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, 2 December 1965

Mr KILLEN (Moreton) .- I wish to raise two points in connection with this clause. The first relates to the Government's proposed amendment to sub-clause (2.) which seeks to delete the words: " or are likely to become ". What is the reason for this deletion?

The CHAIRMAN - Order! The amendment to which the honorable member for Moreton refers has not yet been moved. Therefore it is not before the Committee for discussion. The only amendment before the Committee at the moment is that which was moved by the honorable member for Mackellar just prior to the suspension of the sitting.

Mr KILLEN - I am grateful to you for your assistance. I think you will concede that I have not wandered too much so far. I ask the Attorney-General whether he can explain why it is that the objective test is used with respect to clause 35. The Committee will notice in clause 35 that the phrase " if the Tribunal is satisfied ", " if the

Tribunal in its opinion " or " if the Tribunal considers it appropriate" is not used. In other words a discretionary phrase does not appear in clause 35. The effect of that is that if there is an argument with respect to an examinable agreement dealing with, say, the qualities and extent of goods provided, the argument is put completely within the surveillance of the ordinary courts of law. The superintendence of the High Court is not cut short by the discretion given to the Tribunal in the form of such words as " if the Tribunal is of opinion " or " if the Tribunal is satisfied ". I am particularly interested in getting from the Attorney-General an explanation as to why there is no discretion in clause 35 and, consequently, if there is any argument about what is an examinable agreement that argument can be removed from the Tribunal and taken before the High Court.

Suggest corrections