Page 2883 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (11.17): Madam Speaker, I rise very quickly to say that what Mr Connolly was getting hot under the collar about was the fact that Mr Humphries had personally not had the time to have a look at Mr Stevenson's amendments, not Mr Connolly's Bill. So, before Mr Connolly stands up and gets onto his high horse, talking about press releases that Mr Kaine had allegedly put out this morning - he has not put one out - - -
Mr Connolly: No; I was talking about yesterday's. The story is in this morning's Canberra Times.
MR DE DOMENICO: He is now talking about yesterday. Mr Connolly, please, before you stand up and say things, get your facts straight.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.18): Madam Speaker, I think Mr De Domenico has explained the confusion which no doubt led to Mr Connolly's outburst a moment ago. It is true that Mr Stevenson has circulated a number of amendments. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and to look very carefully at what he has to say. I would certainly like to have some of the issues that he has raised answered. I realise that the Minister has already spoken twice, but I am happy to give him leave to speak a third time. Perhaps it is because it is late in the week and I - - -
Mr Lamont: You are a bit tired.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am a bit tired, yes. I have a bit of jetlag left.
Mrs Grassby: No; it is getting engaged that does it.
MR HUMPHRIES: That could be it too. Madam Speaker, I still do not understand the purpose of subclause (3) of clause 13. We are talking here about making it clear that a person is not guilty of an offence by reason of the fact that they are charged with that offence. That is a perfectly good point to make, and I think it is a point that we would all endorse wholeheartedly. But Mr Stevenson makes the point, and it seems to me to be a reasonably good point, that that is an assumption which permeates all laws we pass - no-one is guilty of an offence, or nobody can have a case found against them, by reason only of the fact that a charge is brought against them. So, why is it necessary to have subclause (3)?
Mr Berry: Liberals vote with Stevenson against fair trading laws.
MR HUMPHRIES: Talk about emotionalism. We are asking a question. If Mr Connolly can explain the answer to this question, I will be very happy to support the Government's position and vote against Mr Stevenson's amendment. But I do not understand why it is that we repeat here that someone is not guilty of an offence because of their being charged with it. I wonder whether Mr Berry can tell us the answer. No, Mr Berry does not know the answer. He is just flying on trust. I am happy to give the Attorney leave to speak again on this matter. I think he would understand what is going on. I am happy to hear his explanation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .