Page 2703 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
convoluted sentences are used. The Bill that we dealt with yesterday, which was part of a package of uniform legislation dealing with fairly complex stock exchange matters, was quite complex. We hope that we can improve on that in our own legislation here, as distinct from the uniform legislation.
Previously, in this Assembly, often after question time, I have introduced a number of papers to do with what we call our law review program, as well as our law reform program, which is introducing the new legislation. We are going through a process of reviewing all the ACT statutes, and from time to time we introduce legislation designed to tidy up, clarify and simplify. We are going through that exercise. It is not an easy exercise. It is a dilemma that confronts all States in Australia and all legislative draftspeople. It is very difficult to meet the competing needs of getting legislation simpler so that it is understandable and getting it precise.
On one view, you could pass a single Act which simply says, "Everyone shall be good". There would be no need for any other laws, because that simple phrase would encompass proper behaviour. We do have to be more precise. As you become more precise, you become more complex. It is a difficult challenge; but I do sympathise with your idea that we should strive for clearer legislative drafting. I think that is something that all members would strive for. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee often tries to help us in that area as well. So it is a sentiment that I think we all share.
MR STEVENSON: I wish to ask a brief supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Has the Attorney-General considered following the example of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which did an admirable job in actually rewriting legislation? The difference is truly remarkable. Has he thought of setting up some sort of a group specifically to do that?
MR CONNOLLY: It is part of our law review process. Indeed, the Victorian report on plain English drafting sits on my bookshelf, as it does on David Hunt's bookshelf and, I think, on those of all of his drafters.
Burmah Fuels Contract
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is directed to the Chief Minister. Can the Chief Minister give the Assembly and the people of Canberra an unconditional guarantee that the negotiation of the contract between Burmah Fuels and the ACT Government was handled by her Government within the law and with due regard to the public interest?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, this is a matter which is before a committee. It appears to me also to be asking me to give a legal opinion, which I am not very happy about; but I can certainly answer to the best of my ability.
MADAM SPEAKER: You may not give a legal opinion, Chief Minister; that is simple. The legal opinion part of the question is out of order.
MS FOLLETT: To the best of my knowledge, the answer is yes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .