Page 50 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is worth asking the question: What is the point of bringing in a Bill to remove sexist language if it leaves a number of Acts with sexist language? The argument I put is that this adds to confusion. It multiplies the number of times that a government has to dive back into legislation to achieve the job it set out to do in the first place. It makes a mockery - - -
Mr Berry: Where are your amendments?
MR HUMPHRIES: I do not propose to put any amendments forward, because they would be enormous and would require a great many resources to prepare. If the Government cannot do it, it is certainly not up to us to do it. It is also asserted that this Bill is designed to improve accessibility to legislation. If we are dealing with a very large number of amending enactments to any particular Act of the Assembly we certainly do not improve accessibility; in fact, quite the opposite.
Madam Speaker, these problems will be mitigated by the establishment of an effective and comprehensive computerised database for legislation in the Territory. This is something which I understand the Government law office is working towards. Indeed, I understand that many Acts are already available on a computer database which provides people who deal with Acts on a day-to-day basis with some certainty that they are dealing with fully comprehensive pieces of legislation. But if it is to be a really effective tool it must be accessible to everybody in the Territory, not just to lawyers.
I pose a few questions which the Minister may answer in the course of his reply. I see that this Bill proposes an amendment to the Common Boundaries Act 1981. The very helpful alphabetical table of laws which I referred to before makes no reference to a Common Boundaries Act 1981. I understand that a Dividing Fences Act was enacted in the Territory in 1981, and I wonder why two Acts with apparently similar objects but different names would be enacted in the same year. The Minister might have an explanation. I hope that he is able to enlighten us about that. If we are amending the Common Boundaries Act 1981 I would expect to see that Act in the list of Acts of the Territory, but it is not there.
Last year in the course of dealing with another ominous Bill of this kind we made reference to the danger of accidentally amending important legislation. In Schedule 2 to this Bill we are repealing the Interim Planning (Amendment) Act 1991, the Interim Planning (Amendment) Act (No. 2) 1991 and the Interim Planning (Consequential Amendments) Act 1990. I take it as read that those Acts are no longer of any value or use to the Territory, but these are quite significant pieces of legislation that are being wiped away. The Church of England Lands Act is also being repealed. I hope that the Church of England does not have a use for any of that land any more.
Madam Speaker, as I say, we would prefer not to have these sorts of very broad-ranging pieces of legislation thrown into one great big pot and thrust in front of us like this. It is not convenient and the amendments will not really be accessible to people who want to use the sorts of enactments covered by this Bill. Nevertheless, we will not be opposing the Bill. We believe that these changes are, for the most part, useful and positive developments in the emerging law of the Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .