Page 706 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another example of this Bill being rushed through, Madam Speaker, is that the explanatory memorandum states that it is designed to: Remove sexist language; simplify expression; remove redundant Acts; correct grammatical or printing errors; and correct errors arising out of the process of self-government. But many of the Acts which are being amended here have examples of those sorts of problems which have not been touched. Again, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report refers to that. For example, the Canberra Theatre Trust Act is being amended for the second time this week, yet it is the second time in the week that we have let sexist language go through to the keeper. We are amending, in three parts, section 9 of the Canberra Theatre Trust Act where there are sexist references, and that is fine; but there are also sexist references, at least according to Professor Whalan, in sections 7, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 19 of the same Act. You say, "Okay, so we have picked up a few of those references, and we have left a few in the Act".
Mr Kaine: They have to have something to do next week.
MR HUMPHRIES: "They have to have something to do next week", says Mr Kaine, and that undoubtedly will be the case. Sooner or later we will be coming back to look at other amendments to the same Act - a third amendment, presumably, in the space of a few months - to do basically the same job. But the question has to be asked: What is the point of such an amendment to the Act? Yes, I have a lot of time, do I not, Chief Minister?
Ms Follett: Yes, you have. I just noticed.
MR HUMPHRIES: How time flies when you are having fun!
Ms Follett: I am just wishing you luck with it.
MR HUMPHRIES: I have so much to say that I need so much time to do it.
We have here on the statute book in the form of the Canberra Theatre Trust Act an Act which is quite capable of causing offence to women because it contains sexist language. That has not been changed, or it has been changed only very slightly, by the Bill that we are going to pass into law today. By passing these piecemeal amendments, we have made it more difficult for a person wanting to read and understand the Canberra Theatre Trust Act to know - - -
Mr Kaine: This is the Chief Minister's nip and tuck approach.
MR HUMPHRIES: It sounds like it, yes. We have made it more difficult for a person in those circumstances to understand what the law says, because, as well as picking up the Canberra Theatre Trust Act, arising out of what we have done this week, the person also has to pick up the amendment Act that we passed earlier dealing with EEO legislation, the Statute Law Revision (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and any other amendments which might have been made since the last reprint of the Canberra Theatre Trust Act. That makes the law, with respect to this particular ACT authority, much more difficult to understand. Is it not our job as legislators to make sure that we make the law accessible to, and easy to understand for, our constituents? Is that not the basic idea of tidying up law like this? But we are not doing that by multiplying endlessly the number of amendments - minor amendments, duplicated and repeated amendments - that we make to particular pieces of legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .