Page 49 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But for others, for poor mortal citizens of the Territory who barely understand the process, much less have access to it, it is a daunting task. It is no wonder that people frequently make the mistake of acting on obsolete or out-of-date law. It is a very easy thing to do. Even members of this Assembly operate on that basis from time to time. Who would guess, for example, that the Electricity and Water Act 1988 was amended by the Government Solicitor Act 1989 or that the Enclosed Land Protection Act 1943 was amended by the Magistrates Court Act 1985? The Dog Control Act 1975, which may or may not still exist - it is certainly still in the table - was amended by the Sex Discrimination (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1986. Perhaps we cannot call - - -
Mr Kaine: Is there sex discrimination amongst dogs?
MR HUMPHRIES: Apparently we cannot call female dogs bitches any more. That is what I assume, Mr Kaine.
Mr De Domenico: I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Mr Humphries. You will not have a leg to stand on.
MR HUMPHRIES: I could be, Mr De Domenico. The Act Revision (Decimal Currency) Act 1966 amended the Pounds Act 1928. There is a joke there somewhere but I will not make it.
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to know what the state of the law is. Particular offenders in this situation are two types of legislation which crop up regularly in that list. They are the various Acts revision Acts and statute law revision Acts of the very kind that we are considering tonight. As I have indicated, it would be our policy in government to pursue these sorts of amendments by concentrating on only the Act concerned, not by having many pieces of legislation dealt with in a single enactment.
Putting that argument to one side, I acknowledge that it is not our job from the Opposition to prise apart these sorts of Bills. We therefore will be supporting the Bill before the house tonight. The amendments, I believe, are not objectionable and are, for the most part, extremely minor and technical in nature. But I raise an interesting question. This Bill is supposed to be an exercise in simplifying the law, but I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that in many ways that is precisely the opposite effect to what in fact is achieved. For example, the Minister said in his presentation speech:
The Bill ... is a housekeeping exercise to bring the language of Territory legislation up to date and remove formal errors from the statutes of the Territory.
With respect, that is not so. With respect, this Bill is patchy. It brings some language up to date in some of the Acts it deals with and it removes some errors from other Acts it deals with, but we cannot assume, in respect of any Act dealt with in this Bill, that the Bill achieves what the presentation speech says is the object of this whole exercise. I give an example. The Minister says that he is intent on removing sexist language from legislation, but several of the Acts which are dealt with in this Bill in fact retain a great many examples of sexist language - the Police Offences Act 1930, the Long Service Leave Act 1976 and the Maintenance Act 1968, to name but three.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .