As regards parliamentary debates, the courts have tended to attach the most weight to speeches by sponsoring ministers, and to be wary of placing too much reliance on speeches by other deputies. In Commissioner of Police v Curran, WILCOX J observed:
"If the purpose of a reference to a parliamentary debate is to determine what was the intention of those who framed the draft, assistance is not likely to be gained outside the speech of the responsible Minister or other informed proponent of that draft."
The same approach is evident in the judgment of KIRBY J in Flaherty v Girgis where he stated that the observations of individual members of Parliament, other than a Minister or similar responsible deputy, on an Act were "an insubstantial basis" for determining the meaning of legislation[1].
Contd..
[1] Statutory Drafting and Interpretation, Consultation Paper on: Plain Language and the Law (LRC CP14-1999) [1999] IELRC 1 (1st July, 1999)
No comments:
Post a Comment