Page 3214 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
counsel. By senior counsel, I am really thinking of one of a number of queen's counsel in Australia who practise regularly before the superior courts, who practise regularly in the High Court, and who have more appropriate qualifications, background and experience to give us a definitive view on this. It may indeed be that at the end of the day that opinion is contrary to the view that I have been putting, and we may have to take the course of seeking reform of the text of section 65 in the parliament on the hill. But I suggest it would be far better to get a definitive legal view before we try to persuade the Federal Parliament to change its mind on a matter where it may well - indeed, I suggest, it did - think it was giving us a legislative provision which imposed upon us only the same limitations that it imposes upon itself.
In calling for this course of action, and before resuming my seat, I also make the point that I can see the Attorney-General is eager to get up and score a little cheap political point on this. In her remarks yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that this Bill, whilst implementing a longstanding Labor Party promise, was drafted with the resources of the Opposition and the resources of the Opposition do not include access to the experienced counsel of the law office. "We believe", said the Leader of the Opposition, "that this is a good Bill, but we are not, in introducing it, claiming that it is a perfect Bill in every provision". The Attorney-General is no doubt going to leap to his feet and point to a couple of what he will claim to be errors in the legislation, and make the dramatic theatrical comments that we have mucked up some provisions. The Leader of the Opposition did not say that this Bill was perfect in every provision, as I also said of the Bill I introduced yesterday. We do not have unlimited resources. We have done our best to provide a Bill - - -
Mr Moore: There is the detail stage.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Moore remarks from the seat next to me, these sorts of minor errors can best be dealt with in the detail stage. We said yesterday in respect of both Bills that we would welcome comments from the Government to improve the drafting of the legislation. But the mere pointing to some provisions in the Bill which Mr Collaery may say may be incorrect - - -
Mr Collaery: You know about it.
MR CONNOLLY: I know enough to say that, like any lawyer, when one or two people look at a Bill they cannot assert that everything is perfect. I am experienced in the process of getting legislation prepared for parliament. From my experience, which Mr Humphries also had at one stage, of preparing legislation as a public servant, I know that it is a job which usually involves a large number of highly skilled legislative draftspeople. We do not have these resources in the Opposition; so the Bills that we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .