Page 460 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I make only one minor comment about this. The term "recognisance" obviously has a very restricted meaning now that it is not in common use in everyday language, whereas the word "undertaking" is commonly used by lots of people, particularly in this place. We do need to be aware that by rendering some judicial or legal words into more understandable words we also in a sense open up an avenue for confusion, because that word "recognisance" has a unique meaning at the moment whereas "undertaking" does not have a unique meaning. In a sense we create opportunities for people to confuse those meanings.
I accept that that is the scheme of things. I am not arguing that we should be thinking of new words, but there is always a downside to this process of simplification, and that, I think, is one such downside.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.04), in reply: Perhaps I should respond to that. Mr Humphries is correct in saying that what we are proposing to do is to remove a term that is fairly arcane and legalistic. Ninety-nine per cent of persons appearing before a magistrate and being told that they are released on their own recognisance would not have a clue what that meant. We are replacing it with a word that persons would understand.
It is meant not to alter the substantive law, and I should make that clear. If a court were presented with an argument as to whether this Assembly meant to change the legal meaning and the legal implications of the term, the court would see from the Hansard that we did not mean that at all. It is rather the process of putting the legal concept into simple language, a concept which is often espoused and is often difficult because legal concepts can be complex and it is hard to find a simple, plain English word. This is a positive process and I can assure Mr Humphries, as he acknowledged, that we are not intending to change the legal meaning; we are just intending to wrap that concept up in a word that is understandable to the community.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12.06 to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Public Debt
MR KAINE: I address a question to the Chief Minister and Treasurer. I refer her to media reports that have indicated that if the Prime Minister's One Nation expenditure statement is implemented the States and Territories will accrue $28 billion in additional debt by 1995-96. Does the Chief Minister agree that the One Nation expenditure statement will result in such debt? How much of this does she expect will accrue to the ACT?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .