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, 20 September 1973
Page: 1380

Mr Clyde Cameron (HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Regrettably, the proposed amendment to clause 54 is quite unintelligible. I am sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but that is the case. The proposed amendment to clause 54 seeks to omit from paragraph (a) proposed sub-sections (2a) and (2b), but the honourable gentleman should omit proposed sub-section (2). That is what he intended to do but, if he omits only subsections (2a) and (2b), sub-sections (1) and (2) will remain. Proposed sub-section (1) provides:

There shall be such Inspectors as are required for the purpose of securing the observance of this Act and the regulation and of awards.

I know that the honourable gentleman is not objecting to that provision. But sub-section (2) provides:

The Minister may appoint a person to be an Inspector for the purposes of this Act.

The amendment seeks to delete proposed subsections (2a) and (2b) but clearly that does not have the effect that is intended. I could easily say that we will consent to the amendment and then the Minister could continue to appoint arbitration inspectors but I do not believe in taking a cheap political advantage over a person who has never had experience in this sort of thing before. Therefore I just warn the honourable gentleman that the amendment in its present form is unintelligible. I suggest that something should be done before it goes to the other place. If the honourable member wishes to persist with quite a silly amendment, if I may so describe it, he ought at least to get it in order.

Suggest corrections