Alex White (Labour)

I started by acknowledging that. The Minister must not have been listening to that part. I accept the Minister and his officials are equally applying themselves and taking careful note of what is said. It very much vindicates the position taken on this side of the House about the manner in which the legislation was proposed to be marshalled through the House. We had a completely unnecessary skirmish here yesterday about whether there would be some sort of gap - we sought half an hour - between Committee and Report Stages. Ludicrously even that was not granted yesterday. In the end because of how the debate proceeded we had the overnight break, which allowed the Minister and the Attorney General to consider these matters and make changes. That simply would not have occurred were it not for the completely unnecessary, stubborn and ridiculous attitude taken by the Leader to the debate on this legislation.

I do not know whether the position of the Leader was adopted in consultation with the Minister - I would be curious to know if it was. However, even if it was not, it was wrong and foolish. No legislation should be pushed through any parliament in the manner that was suggested. The position taken by us is now entirely vindicated by what the Minister has done, in fairness to him, by agreeing to some, but not all, of the amendments tabled. It should be a lesson for other legislation before these Houses, some of which is even more important and momentous in its likely implications and effect. It requires and admits of the most detailed scrutiny, which requires time. At least we had the overnight break and made good use of it.

I welcome what in net terms are two additions. One was already in the Bill and the other was proposed by Senator Bacik and was also advocated by FLAC. We have taken note of its very considerable expertise and application to the issues in this legislation. I very much welcome what the Minister has done for the reasons Senator Bacik originally proposed and explained.

I will not press the amendment we tabled because I accept the Minister has dealt with the issue in his amendment. I do not want to prolong matters unnecessarily or return to an excessively legalistic analysis of the words used. However, I had a certain concern over the formulation which states that the summons should "be served on the debtor by personal service, unless the judge of the District Court directs otherwise". I had a concern that might give latitude to a judge not to require service at all. However, I believe the comma that appears in the middle of it saves it in the sense that the flexibility given to the District Court judge seems to relate to the manner of service rather than the fact of service. I will live with that. I thank the Minister for his attention to what was proposed.