Page 708 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
memorandum, it was clearly pointed out in the introductory speech. Anyone looking at this legislation in the future would be in no doubt as to why it was put through as an urgent measure; but in general we would not be doing this in a hasty process.
Mr Humphries said that his is the only party that has a policy on legislative matters or law reform. I would refute that. In a statement to this house last year the Government indicated its program of law reform, which falls essentially into two categories. There is a law reform process whereby we are looking at new laws and at change to the law. That process has been in place for some time and was in place under the former administration. The Community Law Reform Committee is the prime arm that generates activity through that.
We also said that, running parallel with that, there is a process of legislative review or revision whereby we have officers of the Attorney-General's Department who are looking at the body of ACT laws - those 12 or 13 volumes that are sitting on the table - that go back to that strange mishmash of laws with which Mr Humphries would be familiar. We have some old imperial laws that are dear to Mr Humphries's heart. I think we have identified one going back to 1256, which makes any true conservative delighted that something that "ain't broke" has not been fixed for 700 or 800 years. We have a vast body of later imperial law.
We have a fairly substantial body of New South Wales law, or law which was originally New South Wales law, that is still in force in the ACT. We have Commonwealth ordinances, now Acts, and we have self-government Acts. A century of different forms of legislative drafting is represented in those books on the table in the middle of the house; there are different legislative styles, and there is sexist language which was commonplace in the law until only recently. So, there is a lot of tidying up to be done. It is a process that really cannot be done in one hit; it will take some years.
Mr Humphries was critical of us for bringing forward an omnibus Bill. In general, I think omnibus Bills that are making substantial change are undesirable; on the other hand, we should be looking for efficiency. The Opposition is critical of the Government for not bringing forward a lot of business. Had we wanted to do a stunt and bring forward a lot of business, I could have introduced something like 30 Bills here and said, "Whacko, aren't I a clever law reformer? I have put through 30 Bills". Instead, we have dealt with a large number of minor matters in one Bill.
As I said earlier this week in the debate on the road traffic matter, rather than getting to a situation that was familiar in this Assembly during the last period of government - I admit that it is familiar in other States as well - of having six or eight Acts amending the Road Traffic Act in any sitting year, I hope to limit it to a couple, perhaps one in the autumn sittings and one in the budget sittings, which will be somewhat of an omnibus, amending the one Act but in a range of different policy areas, again, to be more efficient in the way we produce legislation.
One criticism of that process could be, as Mr Humphries indicated, that it would force a person who wants to look at the latest print of an Act - he mentioned the Children's Services Act, but you could pick any Act from here - to buy that Act and all its amendments and this reprint. So, this could be a best-seller that would knock Harold Robbins off the best-seller list in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .