Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In a perfect world it would not be necessary to return to the parliament to correct the wording, or to correct mistakes, in the drafting of legislation. But no matter how efficient the legislative draftsmen are, mistakes will always occur. When you look at the volume of legislation which is processed and which indeed becomes part of the law of this country, it is most remarkable that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel does such a fine job. When you look at the opportunities for error, typos and so on, it really is amazing, relatively speaking, that we have so few.

As was indicated by the honourable member for Wills and by the Attorney-General, this Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2006 is essentially a housekeeping bill. It is tidying up things that need to be tidied up. It is removing from the statute books things that are no longer relevant and things that are no longer appropriate to remain part of the law of this country. I am pleased that the opposition is not opposing what the government is proposing to do. I saw that the member for Wills, however, did take a sideswipe at the government by suggesting that in some way this government is not interested in urban traffic or transport. I would commend to him the AusLink program. If you look at what the Australian government is spending on matters which traditionally have been the responsibility of the states in the transport area, the inaccuracy of what the honourable member uttered in a throwaway line in his speech becomes very obvious to anyone. The member opposite did seek to criticise some aspects of the legislation and some aspects of the changes brought about by the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2006.

See this speech in context