Page 2896 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of uniform policy rather than of ad hoc decision making on the floor of the Assembly. I intend to raise this matter with my colleagues on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and ask whether we should not pursue the matter at that level and through channels emanating from that committee. But the fact of life is that Mr Stevenson has a point, and I think we have to pay attention to it and do something about it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.00): I am glad that Mr Humphries recalled that this is past practice. I was going to unkindly refer Mr Humphries to the Health Services Act of 1990 - a reasonably significant piece of legislation that he had stewardship of, and an equivalent example where you have an interpretation clause at the start of the Act; there are part definitions there at the head of the part, for example, section 49; and the sectional definitions come at the end - subsection 49(5) rather than subsection 49(1). It is the standard ACT drafting practice that has been adopted since self-government. If we are to change it, it is something that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee may want to talk about. I would endorse his remarks that we ought at least to keep to the order that we are currently using, unless we decide to change it overall rather than in the particular.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.01): I believe, Madam Speaker, that the Bible says that Heaven rejoices at the repentance of a single sinner more than it rejoices at the ministrations of 100 faithful men, or something to that effect.
MR STEVENSON (12.01): The Attorney-General made a most significant statement. He said, "I do not really think it matters whether definitions are at the front or at the end". I absolutely agree, because he is a solicitor. If he were not a lawyer, he would mind where they were because it would be important that he understood it. I have not the slightest doubt that most people, when reading legislation - most ordinary people in life who are affected by these things - if they thought there might be a definition, would look to the front or to the back of an Act where it lists definitions. That is the logical thing to do. That is what we are experienced in doing.
The vast majority of people in business are not particularly experienced in looking at legislation. This Bill affects thousands upon thousands of traders; yet we have a situation where the Attorney-General said, "It does not really matter whether the definitions are at the front or at the end". Mr Humphries, also a lawyer, indicated that it would make more sense perhaps to put them at the front, because it is difficult to understand the particular clause if you do not know - - -
Mr Humphries: I am a freethinking lawyer.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Humphries mentions that he is a freethinking lawyer, and in this case I would agree and not only in this case; there have been other such occasions. When Mr Connolly says, "It does not really matter", he is suggesting that the person can find it anyway. Yet we just went through an earlier clause where the explanatory memorandum did not actually say what the Attorney-General meant when we talk about credit cards. So, even if a person had gone to the explanatory memorandum, that person would not have been able to understand the clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .