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, 12 April 1972
Page: 1049

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) - I thank the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) for his 2 very clear expositions. I ask him now whether he can again help me. Looking at clause 20 (1.) I notice that it states:

The Commissioner shall, on behalf of the Commonwealth, appoint as officers such number of persons as he thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.

Clause 20 (2.) states:

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a person shall not be appointed as an officer unless -

(a)   he is a British subject;

Clause 20 (3.) states:

The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Minister, appoint as an officer a person who is not a British subject . . .

Will the Minister explain to me why one sub-clause contains the requirement that a person shall be a British subject while the other sub-clause has no such requirement? The Minister's advisers have induced him to write in, or the Minister on behalf of someone has written in, the requirement that a person be a British subject, yet a few lines further down there is no such requirement. I am wondering whether it would not be simpler to take out both references, or would that be beyond the wit of the Government?

Suggest corrections