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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1405 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

apply. This can only be done in one of two ways. The other act or statutory instrument must specifically refer to the Legislation Act provision and state that it does not apply. Alternatively, the other act or statutory instrument must clearly contradict the effect of the Legislation Act provision.

If the provision of the Legislation Act is a non-determinative provision, it can be displaced more easily. For this purpose, the other act or statutory instrument need only express a contrary intention-in other words, a broad hint that the non-determinative provision does not apply.

As mentioned in my presentation speech, although these distinctions may seem subtle when discussed in the abstract, the examples in proposed section 6 in the bill will help to ensure that there are very few difficulties in practice.

Third, the bill restates the provisions in a simplified, updated and, where necessary, enhanced form. Some of the provisions revised by the bill were added to the statute book about 20 years ago. The restated provisions do not represent a dramatic change in the rules of statutory interpretation. They largely reflect significant common law developments in statutory interpretation in recent years.

In the detail stage, I propose moving an amendment to example 7 in proposed section 142 in response to a comment by the Committee on Legal Affairs. In a moment I will give further detail the reasons why the government does not accept the concerns expressed by Mr Stefaniak or the scrutiny of bills committee about proposed section 142.

Fourth, the bill includes new provisions confirming the application of the common law privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. These provisions will remove any doubt about the continuing application of the privileges to ACT laws. The important principles represented by the privileges may be displaced only by legislation that uses very clear language. This will help ensure that the privileges are not inadvertently displaced. Any change to displace these principles will be subject to Assembly scrutiny.

The bill makes minor and technical changes to improve the operation of the Legislation Act and the legislation register. In the detail stage, I also propose moving an amendment to proposed section 192 (3) in response to a further comment by the Committee on Legal Affairs. I have arranged just now for the Clerk to circulate my proposed amendments for the information of members.

Finally, the bill also makes minor consequential amendments to a number of other acts.

I will now explain the government's position on the issues that have been raised and discussions that have been undertaken between my office and other offices. We are happy to proceed to the end the in-principle stage today and for debate on the bill to be then adjourned.

As has been indicated, the government has some amendments. Ms Dundas has also circulated some amendments to the bill. As we have heard, the scrutiny of bills committee has made detailed comments in relation to this proposal. Mr Stefaniak has

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