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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (13 March) . . Page.. 999 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

This bill will complete the process of updating and clarifying provisions brought over to the Legislation Act from the old Interpretation Act. It will restate the provisions dealing with statutory interpretation to make the law in this area clearer and more coherent and make it take account of developments in the common law.

The provisions of the Legislation Act now proposed to be replaced were enacted in their current form some 20 years ago, in the Interpretation Act. They are well overdue for reform. The new provisions are restated in a simplified, updated and, where appropriate, enhanced way. They do not represent a dramatic change in the rules of statutory interpretation but reflect significant common law developments in the area in recent years.

For example, the effect of common law developments has been to establish the purposive approach to the interpretation of legislation; to stress the importance of legislation being read in context, including in the context of all its provisions; and to make obsolete many of the statutory restrictions applying to the use of non-legislative material, such as Hansard, explanatory statements, committee reports, and so on. The provisions of the bill reflect these developments.

Members will recall that a year ago I presented a bill to the Assembly including a reform along similar lines to the law of statutory interpretation, the Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The Standing Committee on Legal Affairs indicated some concerns with the reform of the law of statutory interpretation represented by that bill. The ACT Bar Association also circulated a submission indicating its concurrence with the views of the standing committee and raised some additional concerns of its own.

At the time, my government acquiesced to the view of the Assembly that the reforms should be deferred, and I moved an amendment with the effect of maintaining the status quo for the time being, which members approved. However, I also undertook to pursue this reform in consultation with the ACT Bar Association.

The bill before the Assembly now is the product of that consultation process. The Bar Association has confirmed that it is satisfied with the modified proposals for reform in the bill. There were three areas of concern, each of which has been addressed in revising the reforms proposed in the bill.

First, there was a concern that the wider express sanction for the use of non-legislative material might tend to make the law less accessible and more costly. This concern is addressed by the preservation and reinforcement of existing safeguards against inappropriate regard being had to non-legislative material in interpreting legislation. A court will need to consider the ordinary meaning of a statutory provision in its legislative context and the cost of prolonging proceedings unnecessarily. In addition, a new consideration is introduced requiring a court to consider the public accessibility of the non-legislative material in weighing its significance.

Second, a concern was expressed by the standing committee that the mandate to consult a wide range of non-legislative material might give a court too much leeway to "mould"

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