Page 705 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, that I am most unhappy about that state of affairs and would like to see these kinds of examples eradicated from the history of this Assembly, if that is at all possible.
The arguments that there is some evidence of rushing on the face of this legislation are numerous, and I will give some examples of what I am talking about. The first example is that references in this Bill are made to the Crimes Act. There were multiple amendments to the Crimes Act in late 1990 and 1991. The staggered coming into effect of those amendments has led to the situation where, as of 11 June this year, there will be two sets of sections 152 to 155 in the Crimes Act. Clearly, we would not want the situation to occur where two sets of provisions have the same numbers and therefore generate all sorts of bizarre possibilities which I have not even dared think about.
The main reason for the passage of this Bill today rather than in the June sittings is that we will not be sitting again until after 11 June and therefore, unless the Bill is passed into law today, it will not be possible to rectify that problem with the Crimes Act. That is a reasonable argument. But in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, which usually takes the crux of legislation and explains it to people, there is no reference to the Crimes Act problem, which makes me believe that this particular provision was added more or less at the last minute to what would otherwise have been an ordinary Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That is not a glaring problem, but it does make the effect of an explanatory memorandum rather nugatory when the principal objective of the Bill is not actually mentioned in the explanatory memorandum.
Mr Kaine: It is evidence of shooting from the hip.
MR HUMPHRIES: I have to say, as the Opposition Leader has pointed out, that it is evidence of shooting from the hip. Maybe there are not any problems in doing so; maybe we will get by on this occasion. But the point is that maybe we will not; and I do not know.
There is another problem, Madam Speaker, which has been raised in the report that Mrs Grassby just tabled, which was originally identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and which I assume the Attorney will be picking up in some way. Last week we passed the Crimes Legislation (Status and Citation) Bill which had the effect of changing references to the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales in its application to the Territory to the Crimes Act 1900 of the ACT. This Bill, which comes after the other Bill, refers to the Crimes Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory. The old provision appears here.
In the normal course of affairs you would expect that the Chief Minister would sign into law the citation Bill before she signs into law this Bill which we are passing this week. She having had it brought to her attention, by me or the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I have no doubt that this will be fixed up in some way; but the problem is not exactly easy to solve. Perhaps the Attorney-General can advise us how he is going to solve it. Two solutions presented themselves to our committee. One was that this Bill might be signed into law before the citation Bill. The other possibility was that if the Chief Minister was ambidextrous she could take a pen in her right hand and a pen in her left hand and sign both Bills simultaneously, which might solve the problem. However, we do not wish to put the Chief Minister to any more exertion and intellectual strain than we have heard that her office upstairs is now experiencing, so we will not necessarily force that solution onto her.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .