Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1399 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I spoke to Mr John Harris, the president of the Bar Association, who I understand from the Chief Minister is writing a letter to the Chief Minister-the Chief Minister is probably quite happy to send copies to any interested person; he has indicated that he will send me a copy-expressing the concerns of the Bar Association. When I spoke to Mr Harris yesterday afternoon, he had particular concerns in relation to the equity of proposed section 142. It would mean a lot more work for lawyers and a lot more cost to clients.

This concern was borne out by a letter I received from another practitioner who said that he could spend a day working on giving proper advice under this new legislation as to what an act might mean and how a court might construe it. That is fine if a client has a lot of money, but if a client does not have a lot of money, that might well be a significant problem. Do we really need to go down the path that learned opinion to date seems to suggest section 142 might lead us down?

The Chief Minister, in his introductory speech, said:

... some of the current provisions about statutory interpretation were included in the Interpretation Act almost 20 years ago and are well overdue for review.

I wonder. He went on to say:

Therefore, the opportunity has been taken to restate the provisions in a simplified, updated and, where necessary, enhanced form.

I do not mind the provisions being simplified and updated, but the enhanced form is causing a number of problems, not only to the committee and its learned adviser, Peter Bayne, which I have gone through in some length, but also to people like John Harris of the Bar Association and other practitioners who are turning their minds to this matter.

I think the Chief Minister was wrong when in his introductory speech he said:

The restated provisions do not represent a dramatic change in the rules of statutory interpretation but reflect significant common law development of statutory interpretation in recent years.

The view of certain people in the profession at this early stage is that these provisions may well represent a dramatic change. I think we need to exercise great care.

A learned gentlemen from La Trobe University, Mr Jeffrey Barnes, assisted the Office of Parliamentary Counsel office in this regard. I am mindful of the views of professional people who practise on a day-to-day basis. They are expressing grave reservations about this view. Perhaps it is overly academic and there might be problems in practice. It is very important for the Assembly to be satisfied that this law will not adversely affect the operation of laws in the territory. I feel there is a real danger of that.

This is from another practitioner who sent me some material on proposed section 142:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .