I did not answer that because I had not concluded my argument. Senator O'Farrell wants to give an appeal on a question of law under Part I. I had got so far as to point out that Part I. was limited to absorption and amalgamation schemes, and as far as the agreed schemes were concerned, I think the stockholders are perfectly protected in the Fourth Schedule. As to anything beyond that, Senator Sir John Keane asks what is the objection to an appeal on a point of law. My answer is a very simple one. I do not want an unnecessary appeal in these schemes, either the agreed or the compulsory ones, and Senator O'Farrell said it will be two laymen in opposition to one legal man on this tribunal. That is perfectly right, and it must be borne in mind, in weighing this amendment, that I did not seek to minimise that difficulty. But I do say that two laymen on a tribunal of three, the third of which is a legal man, would certainly be very much swayed by the legal man's opinion on questions of law. They will be pretty well subservient to his point of view, so that while there is a danger that must not be lost sight of that you could have two stiff-necked and arrogant laymen on this tribunal who might become objectionable towards the legal man, and simply oppose him, that is a risk that must be run.
I urge against that that it is a contingency that is not likely to happen. On the other hand, if you put in a clause of this sort you must recognise the situation with regard to this amalgamation scheme, and you must recognise that, just as in Private Bill procedure, the door is open to all sorts of obstruction to the carrying through of a proposal in a private Bill, so if you put in an amendment of this sort you open the door for all sorts of obstruction to the carrying through of the amalgamation and absorption schemes in time, and time is very much the essence of this Bill. I urge against the acceptance of the amendment on the ground that it is possible that it will lead to unnecessary delay. So far as the interests of stockholders are concerned in an agreed scheme, they are protected in the Bill under Schedule IV. I do not like to set up here a legal opinion that I have got privately, but I have been advised by the Legal Adviser of the Government that this section is watertight in so far as it was sought to make it watertight. I cannot say that all the points raised here were put before the Legal Adviser, but the advice he gave to me was that this section was as watertight as he thought it advisable to have it.