Page 650 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak: No.
MR STEVENSON: Exactly. I thought he made a good point, actually, Attorney-General. The very presentation says that businesses should do their dealings in plain, simple English, and I totally agree with that. Businesses should use plain English. But, compared to governments, how they normally operate is, indeed, very simple. We push out Bill after Bill in this Assembly, and I am quite convinced that even some of the people drafting them do not understand them fully, let alone the members in here.
They take a great deal of time to go through - an enormous amount of time. You need a dictionary; you need to refer to other Acts; you need to refer to other parts of the Acts; you have to look at the interpretations. It is not an easy matter. Yet here we are - - -
Mr Kaine: Do not be intellectually lazy, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: That is right. Here we are, telling businesses that the onus is on them to supply things in plain English, and yet you cannot understand the regulations that we are going to use to do that very thing. Is that not an anomaly, of some degree?
Mr Duby: No.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Duby says "No". I can well understand the level of anomaly that could be there before Mr Duby would think that it required some explanation. So, once again, it says:
... the invitation shall not be regarded as unsolicited.
When you use terms like this, does it not get into a sort of a double negative, if you like? Would it not be better to say, "The invitation shall be regarded as being solicited"? It is very difficult for a lot of people, leaving dyslexic people aside, to understand that sort of double negative. So, once again, why do we not actually look at these things from the viewpoint of people being able to understand them? These laws will apply to many companies. They have an absolute obligation to know what they are talking about. And, as I said, it is difficult to understand. So, with this particular case, I rest my case.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (5.24): I agree that we do have a case here, Mr Speaker.
Mr Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Speaker - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! Yes, all right, Mr Stevenson. I would ask you to withdraw that imputation, Mr Collaery.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .