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, 9 March 1972
Page: 622

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia) - The Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) suggests that we should pass legislation the implications of which we are not aware and about which no one can advise us. He states that the draftsman had some idea; therefore it should be passed.

Senator Greenwood - I will say that is a good reason why this clause should remain as it is.

Senator CAVANAGH - Let us assume that 1 make an application to the court or judge for an order to direct a bank of manager to give me the right to inspect or take copies of the books. Suppose I seek from a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court an order to inspect the books of my account at the Commonwealth Bank because I want to do that. Clause 24 (2.) seems to me to contain a prohibition on serving the order on the manager or the bank unless a judge so directs. Why should I be prohibited? If I sought this order next Tuesday from a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, I am prohibited from informing the bank unless the judge so directs. Clause 24 (2.) states:

An application for an order under the last preceding sub-section shall not be served -

I do not know what the penalty would be if I acted in defiance of that and served it-

.   . on the bank or manager concerned unless the court or judge directs that the application be so served.

I cannot understand why the legislation contains these words to confuse the matter or why we should adopt it for no other reason than that we do not know what it means.

Suggest corrections