Page 2894 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
"(3) For the purposes of this section, a publication by a prescribed information provider is a prescribed publication if -
(a) in any case - the publication was made by the prescribed information provider in the course of carrying on a business of providing information; or
(b) in the case of a person who is a prescribed information provider by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the definition of 'prescribed information provider' in subsection (3) (whether or not the person is also a prescribed information provider by virtue of another operation of that definition) - the publication was by way of a radio or television broadcast by the prescribed information provider.".
I believe that this amendment would make the clause easier to read. It is a common habit in legislation for the explanation of words or terms used within a clause to appear at the end of the clause, but there is no indication that the definitions come later. That is important. Let me give an example. Someone reading the word "person" in a clause would assume that it meant "person". Yet we find out that it does not mean "person"; it means "person", "corporation", et cetera.
For ease of reading legislation, if a clause uses a term that would not be understood by most people, or many people - that is obviously why we have definitions - the definition of that term should come at the start of the clause, or there should be a notification at the start of the clause that the definition is at the end of the clause. This would make it far easier for anybody reading the legislation to understand it. You can sit down for a couple of hours trying to work out what a particular clause means. If you do not know that terms within the clause are defined at the end of the clause, the clause may not make any sense until you get to the end.
To make the legislation easier to understand, we should do one of two things. We should either make a note that definitions are at the end of clauses - and clauses can be brief or very long - or include the definitions at the start of clauses. People reading a word or phrase would then know that it meant a particular thing. They would more readily understand clauses. I understand the justification for putting definitions at the end. It is current practice. However, I am not so concerned about current practice. I am far more concerned that clauses and legislation be understood by the people they affect and not by lawyers only.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.55): Madam Speaker, there is certainly a lot of sense in Mr Stevenson's statement that you should have a logical order in where definitions go. I accept that as far as it goes. In this piece of legislation we are following the drafting practice that the Commonwealth adopted. Definitions not in the front of a Bill in the interpretation clause are always at the end of specific clauses. I do not think it really matters whether they are always at the end or always at the beginning. We had that discussion with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .