Page 651 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: If the Attorney-General wants to jump to his feet and not allow me the right to protest, to raise this matter in this house, well, I suppose, so be it. I am not sure which particular case of what I spoke about he was referring to. If Mr Collaery is prepared to retract that - - -
Mr Collaery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Stevenson does not have to speak for so long to get my apology. I withdraw the imputation.
Mr Stevenson: Thank you very much indeed, Attorney-General.
MR COLLAERY: I will be still more magnanimous, Mr Stevenson, if we can leave soon.
Mr Speaker, Mr Stevenson raises the question as to what a contract is. When the undoubtedly versatile Mr Stevenson gets to law school after his parliamentary career, one of the first subjects that he will be taught will be what a contract is. Mr Speaker, a contract can be orally implied, partly written, fully written, a mixture of both, and so on. That is how all of us, and lay people as well, understand the meaning of a contract.
I think Mr Stevenson does not make any substantive point on that issue, and I can see no other matters that require comment. Most of the issues raised by Mr Stevenson were self-evident, at least to those of us in the chamber.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5
MR STEVENSON (5.26): Mr Speaker, for a start, I feel that the wording of subclause (2), line 14, is inadequate. It states:
... and the dealer are each guilty of an offence punishable ...
One would normally think that it required someone to be convicted prior to their being guilty of an offence. The wording does not say that, though.
Mr Connolly: It does; it is a standard provision.
MR STEVENSON: Well, it might be a standard provision but that does not mean that it makes any sense. A lot of things done standardly are nonsense. The fact that a lot of people have been doing them does not make any difference. I would suggest that someone doing that is not guilty of an offence, but it says that they are. Firstly, they would have to be convicted of the offence. Would that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .