Page 2053 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
memorandum simply repeats the words that are in dispute. As the Attorney said, rather than giving guidance and background on what the words of an Act mean, so often the explanatory memoranda simply restate the words of an Act, and that is of no use to anyone giving advice on what an Act means or to a court trying to choose between two possible meanings of a provision.
The goal that has been expressed by the Attorney, of writing explanatory memoranda in a more prose style to give a simple explanation of what is intended to be achieved by legislative provision rather than a restatement of the words of the legislative provision, would be a significant step forward and it would be a model for other States and Territories. While there has been some very good work done in other jurisdictions in Australia in moving towards plainer English drafting - the Victorian Legislative Counsel's office seems to be leading the field in that area - there has not been as much attention given to this question of explanatory memoranda, and on behalf of the Opposition we certainly welcome this initiative and congratulate the Government on it.
It is an area that is perhaps of concern more to technical lawyers than the public generally; but if this leads to background explanatory memoranda that are written in simple plain English it will be of enormous benefit to the public because law which is inaccessible, law which cannot be understood by a member of the public, is bad law. If we can lead to a situation where explanatory memoranda set out in plain simple English the intention behind legislation, it will mean that the law is more accessible to the community and so closer to the community. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a good move and one to be welcomed.
Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSERVATION, HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT - STANDING COMMITTEES
Joint Report - Planning Legislation
Debate resumed from 18 April 1991, on motion by Mr Jensen:
That the report be noted.
MRS NOLAN (4.15): Mr Deputy Speaker, I, in fact, am the only member of the joint committees which inquired into the planning legislation who to date has not had the opportunity to speak to the report. I will keep my remarks brief. Mr Deputy Speaker, when reading through the draft Hansard of the contributions of other members on the day the report was tabled I was a little amazed that some members hardly addressed the planning legislation. They spent much of their time on membership and participation on the committees. Seemingly, some saw that as the more important issue and any remarks relating to the legislation became secondary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .