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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (3 April) . . Page.. 1366 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

committees of inquiry or similar bodies that were presented to the Assembly before the act was passed-in other words, the types of reports which actually led to a statute being created-and the traditional explanatory statement, which used to be called an explanatory memorandum, for the bill or any other document that was presented to the Assembly before the act was passed. Another traditional means is the presentation speech itself made to the Legislative Assembly before the passage of the bill that became the act. Again, if there is any confusion in the act or the explanatory statement, you can go to the speech and there may be something there to assist as well.

Also included are official reports of proceedings in the Assembly in relation to the bill that became the act. The actual debate itself can elicit exactly what is meant. I can think of some fairly complex debates we have had on pieces of legislation which would not be covered by the act itself or the explanatory memorandum because amendments were made from the floor. I can remember one specific example which may have led to confusion but has not to date, to my knowledge, that is, some amendments we made to, I think, the Crimes Act. The Clerk is grimacing at this one. There was a lengthy debate. We were amending 11 or 12 different sections and we were doing so late at night-in fact, in the early hours of the morning.

Mrs Dunne: It sounds like the land act.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes. We had a few moments as well with the retail tenancy legislation. At about 2.15 am we had a swag of amendments and counteramendments. We adjourned for about 10 minutes and sorted it all out. I might have come up with a formula. Anyway, it was all sorted out and went into the legislation. We were a little bit worried, but it was okay.

Reference to the debate there would have been of some assistance if there were problems. It is not the ideal way of doing things, but reference to the debate could assist there. I do not quite know whether reference to the debate would have assisted with regard to the act governing PALM which we debated in, I think, 1991 as there were some 50 different amendments and counteramendments moved from the floor. That probably has been rectified by the passage of time.

Mrs Dunne: No, it has just got worse.

MR STEFANIAK: It has just got worse, according to Mrs Dunne. That was not an ideal situation and I do not recall there being a particularly helpful debate on that occasion, either. That is an example of how reference to the debate might be rather useless, but where reference to the debate is useful it can be of assistance.

I turn to something which has been done at common law and which I must admit has concerned me and members of my party at times in relation to various jurisdictions, that is, the treaties and international agreements to which Australia is a party. When you look at certain UN charters and consider the nature of some of the regimes that signed them, you can have a problem initially. I have found, however, that when you look at the sections actually being dealt with you will find statements which most people in Australia would have little problem agreeing with. Australia being a signatory to them is something courts have come to consider a lot over the last 20 years.

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