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, 21 November 1974
Page: 2665

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) -I am concerned about this matter because I fail to apprehend the purpose which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) has in mind. It seemed to me that as the sub-clause stood originally, when an order was made under clause 90 and that order required the parties to separate because it was, in the judgment of the court, proper that that be done, if the court felt that it was in the interests of the parties or of the children it could say: 'You must go before a marriage counsellor'. I can see purpose in that. I know it has an element of compulsion, I have sensed that in these areas the Attorney-General desires to avoid any compulsion.

Senator Murphy - That is the next amendment.

Senator GREENWOOD - I appreciate that it is the next amendment, but it seems to me that this one can be considered only in the light of what is to follow. I may be putting it too strongly, but it is certainly relevant to consider what is to follow when making an assessment of what is to be deleted. If the words are deleted, what is left is that where the court makes an order or grants an injunction under section 90 the court shall do certain things. Certainly the court's power is widened. For my part, I feel less concerned about this amendment than I do about the use of the word 'direct' because I feel that in the circumstances where the court takes the quite strong step of requiring people to live apart it ought at least to have the discretion to compel people to go before a counsellor.

Senator Murphy - This is really the next amendment.

Senator GREENWOOD - I sense that. It was really to clarify my thinking about the amendment that I spoke. I am happy to have the Attorney-General 's confirmation.

Amendment agreed to.

Suggest corrections