Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague the member for Stirling has opposition responsibilities for this legislation, but he is absent from parliament today on parental leave. He and his wife, Georgina, have just had a baby boy, William. So, while sending him my congratulations, I note that his absence means I have responsibility for the opposition’s response to this legislation. On the face of it, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2010 is unlikely to generate much public debate or indeed any public interest. But every bill presented to this parliament deserves considered analysis, and so I will try to give this bill appropriate scrutiny—its moment in the sun, its 15 minutes of Warholian fame.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the main purposes of the bill are to correct technical errors that have occurred in acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes, and to remove references to specific ministers and departments so that when changes are made to the Administrative Arrangements Order legislation does not need to be amended. The bill also contains amendments to modernise language, to ensure consistency of language and to make other technical amendments in certain legislation. The bill also repeals a number of acts that are obsolete. My interest was immediately sparked by the provisions regarding the names of ministers. It seems that it will make it so much easier for the Prime Minister to correct those fundamental errors that she made when first announcing her cabinet after the election. Colleagues will remember that she had to make a number of hasty amendments. Through sloppy administration or oversight—or perhaps it was a deliberate dig at some of her colleagues—she had to make a number of changes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw your attention to the content of the bill. The shadow minister is not being relevant.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to confine her remarks to the bill before the Committee.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly am. I am referring to the provision making it easier to make changes to ministerial titles without having to go back and refer to parliament. It also will make it much easier for the Prime Minister to reshuffle her cabinet. And most certainly a reshuffling of the cabinet is well and truly on the cards, as we have seen the Assistant Treasurer auditioning for the Treasurer’s position every day in question time. There is also a concerted effort within the AWU to replace the Minister for Trade. So these provisions will assist the Prime Minister—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will confine her remarks to the bill before the Committee. This is straying away from the substance of the bill, and I call her back to the bill before the Committee.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would hope that the chief government whip is not being too precious about this. Let me give you an example. When the Prime Minister drops the word ‘multicultural’ from a parliamentary secretary’s title and then merely days later decides to insert the word ‘multicultural’ in a title for political purposes, this bill will make it much easier for her to do that.

As for the purpose of attempting to modernise the language in our statutes and laws, I am certainly in favour of that. After all, even a reading of Shakespeare invites some to observe: to modernise or not to modernise, that is the question. In fact, the many changes—and the explanatory memorandum runs to some 26 pages of amendments; this is a substantial matter—grapple with issues such as the use of a capital ‘I’ for internet in legislation, as included, for example, in the Corporations Act 2001. So this bill seeks to replace ‘Internet’ with an uncapitalised common noun—that is, ‘internet’. In case you think this is an arcane point, there is an internet standards community which has differentiated between ‘the Internet’, a proper noun with a capital ‘I’, and ‘internet’, a common noun which is a contraction of the term ‘interconnected network’. I am pleased that this bill has now sorted that one out.

One of the other provisions contained in the bill is to change ‘authorize’ to ‘authorise’. It specifies the Marriage Act of 1961. I think this is just indicative of the perils of Microsoft autocorrect in word processing. I am not sure why this particular piece of legislation has been singled out for the correction of this drafting style. I am led to believe by the Parliamentary Library that there are literally hundreds of examples of such verbs, synonyms, typonyms and troponyms. Take the word ‘modernise’ itself as opposed to ‘modernize’. We have at least corrected that as far as the Marriage Act is concerned.

As to the third purpose of repealing obsolete acts, it is important that we review our legislation from time to time to reflect contemporary circumstances. Times change and societies change, but this is not always reflected in the rules and the laws that govern us. Complexity in life begets complexity in legislation, and it can be a monumental task to simplify legislation once it has become complex and elaborate and also to remove from the statute books unnecessary or obsolete legislation. In fact, there is a global website dedicated to obsolete laws. Its address is www.dumblaws.com. It canvasses some of the quirky laws across the world that remain on the statute books. I would recommend that members read the section on Australia because it goes into some of the state, territory and federal laws that would go in the category of downright crazy laws.

Nevertheless, I do support this attempt to correct errors, modernise the language of some of the acts and repeal obsolete acts. This bill should be supported. More importantly, in fact, it should be supported because the government informs us that there are no financial implications arising from it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deputy opposition leader did not quite make the 15-minute Warhol benchmark but did it justice nonetheless!

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2010. It was a fascinating contribution from the shadow minister for foreign affairs. We are seeing the ructions, the rancour and the rifts in the coalition about her position and her description—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having been admonished by you for not remaining relevant to the bill before the chamber, I point out that the next speaker is in fact attempting to stray from the topic in the same way. I am sure you will mete out equal punishment to him.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the member’s point and I issue the same reminder to the member for Blair. I will be listening carefully.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am mortified and horrified that the shadow minister is so precious about her own title when faced with the ambitious erstwhile colleagues who so desire her position.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I must rise to take a point of order. The point of order is on relevance to the bill. I ask the speaker not to stray from the precise terms of this extremely important Statute Law Revision Bill, particularly in the presence of the esteemed Attorney-General.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair will confine his remarks to the bill, please.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. Sadly the Australian Labor Party has only occupied the treasury bench about 30 per cent of the time since Federation—so, if we are to be held at fault for omissions and problems in relation to statute law revision, we will accept 30 per cent of the failure. Those opposite should accept 70 per cent. The good thing about statute law revision is that both sides of politics seriously have made attempts in the last 30 years to redress the problems. It is a serious issue if you have got legislation that refers to non-existent sections or there is an O where there should be a zero or there is an apostrophe missing or there is the word ‘also’ in some section which makes the section nonsensical. There can be chaos in a courtroom or in the community when it comes to understanding what a piece of legislation means.

Correcting drafting or clerical errors is important. We need to modernise the language. Sometimes old statutes need to be modernised. I can well remember, when I was studying law at the University of Queensland, seeing legislation that referred to women and children as ‘chattels’. That was in legislation that was on the statute books. So there is a real need to seriously look at legislation to update the language to make sure it is consistent in style and reflects community standards of linguistics, morality, ethics and virtue. So this is important legislation.

I will run through some of the errors being corrected in the bill. There is a reference, for example, in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act to a subsection that simply does not exist. That should be changed. There is a reference in the Corporations Act 2001 to the Fair Trading Act 1987 of Queensland, when it should be the Fair Trading Act 1989. There are other things that need to be fixed up in the Corporations Act. It incorrectly refers to a section 610BA when it really should refer to 601BA. These are important changes to make. The word ‘website’ should be rendered as one word, not two words. If we were talking about 30 or 40 years ago that might be correct, but it is certainly not correct now. And, as the shadow minister for foreign affairs correctly pointed out, there is a need to be consistent with the capitalisation of the word ‘internet’, and the common usage should be used.

There is a typographical error, for example in the Customs Act, where the Arabic numeral ‘1’ is represented by the letter ‘l’. That is a mistake. There is a section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act that is totally redundant that incorrectly contains the number ‘6666’. There is a situation where an apostrophe is wrongly added after the word ‘representative’ in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. In the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act, instead of H2O, which we know is water, the act has got H20. So there are some changes that need to be made.

In the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, ‘entitlements’ is wrong; it should be ‘entitlement’. We have also got, as I said before, the word ‘also’, which makes a nonsense of one of the other pieces of legislation that deals with proceeds of crime. There is a really bad mistake in the family law legislation where there is no particular definition referring to family violence. So a number of changes need to be made. I think a classic case of someone messing it up is the reference to steps ‘2, 2A’ and ‘2A’ a second time in schedule 6 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. That is simply a duplication that needs to be removed. Sometimes we can make mistakes that simply make up words that cannot be found in the English language—for example, words in relation to tradeable water rights. The Water Act 2007 incorrectly makes reference to ‘tradable water rights’. The classic and best one that I could find would have to be where the Water Act refers to not ‘mediation’ but ‘meditation’. That is something we should all think about. We see perhaps the need for mediation at question time, and the speaker talks about that. But I think at times as federal politicians we need to undertake just a bit of meditation, and with those words I support this legislation.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity today to make some comments on the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2010. As has been so well put by the two previous speakers this morning, there are a range of things that need to be fixed up across a great many pieces of legislation. I am sure that that will be the case in the future as well as we either adjust our language or adjust our view of the realities of the current moment. What so many think is the gospel truth now may be seen in a brighter light in the future. I was reminded recently by the member for Tangney, and I support him on this, that these days it seems that when you talk about CO2, you must have as an addition to that the word ‘pollution’. In the future, we might well see changes in law which reflect on the commentary of the current age.

I would like to cover some points with regard to item 6 in schedule 2 of the bill. When you reflect on what this Statute Law Revision Bill will be doing to fix up minor errors in legislation, you will find that it will make a lot of laws easier to understand. Within the context of the item in the schedule, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about some things that happened in the Cowan electorate in the lead-up to the federal election last year. There is a specific address that is very relevant in this matter—64 Wanneroo Road, Marangaroo. About a year and a half ago, the house at this address was reported to me as being derelict. It had squatters living in it. There had been a lot of damage done to it. It was uninhabitable by those who had been there and seen it. So it came to me as a bit of a surprise that this house was taken up by my principal opponent in the last election as an electorate office. Of course, this is completely contrary to by-laws, but the City of Wanneroo did not have any great problem with that. So when we talk about electoral laws a few interesting things can be done. Shortly after that house was taken up as a campaign office, I noticed in this derelict house that is not—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I have had a look at schedule 2, item 6 and I would have to say that the contribution being made by the honourable member for Cowan is not relevant.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go to that fact: this is about electoral and referendum amendments. When people appear on electoral rolls specifically to gain votes—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, further to the point of order: item 6 refers to changing ‘the’ to ‘a’. It is a very long bow that is being drawn and one that I do not think we can countenance.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan does have to make his remarks relevant to the bill currently before the Main Committee.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that, with regard to pre-poll voting and other measures—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Based on the reminders that have been given to others members in this debate, I do have to ask the member for Cowan to confine his remarks to the content of this bill.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the circumstances, I guess I can fill the remaining minutes talking about the bill. As has been said, there have been a lot of aspects of Commonwealth law that have been locked in the past. When the member for Blair talked about women and children as chattels—and I know that he was not referring to a law that is actually to be amended here—I noted that that is something we are very glad to have seen the end of. Unfortunately, it is those parts of legislation that do appear in other countries, so it would be good if more countries around the world actually had bills such as the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2010.

When we look through what we have here in the various schedules and amendments, we can see that there are a lot of interesting things that have been changed. I take up an issue that the shadow minister for foreign affairs spoke about: the use of ‘s’ and ‘z’ in the legislation. It always surprises me how things like this can occur, not just when you have things such as US to Australian spellcheckers but also when you have so many people involved in a process—the public servants, the department and the drafters of laws that are tasked with getting these things right—yet these sorts of things still slip through. Mistakes are still made and it is bizarre, isn’t it, how you can have so many people looking over pieces of legislation yet mistakes are still made. That is unfortunate.

A number of unfortunate things have happened in the past and there is plenty of room for further amendments in the future with regard to a lot of laws. Since the Attorney-General is still here, I will say that I think there will be plenty of room in the future to make other changes. Whilst they might not be described as minor errors—they could be major errors—there are a number of aspects to do with electoral law reform and the reform of the way in which the electoral rolls are conducted in this country. As we know, there are some people who will stop at nothing—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member is straying from the bill yet again.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am merely seeking to encourage the Attorney-General to keep up this good work with regard to statute law revisions and amendments across a range of different bills. We are certain that there has been significant fraud in the past and that we should never accept even one person doing the wrong thing.

Imagine, for instance, a case of people signing on to the electoral roll, with no intention of living at a house, such as occurred in my electorate, with Mr Barson and Mr Pastorelli, who happened to be the main supporters of my Labor opponent at the last election. It is a tragedy.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Cowan is reminded to confine his remarks to the bill.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have appreciated the opportunity to do so and, while I have always thought I could find more things that would be worthy of speaking about in this bill, I see no point in further delaying the business of the chamber with further comments.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—Briefly, I thank members for their contributions—some more relevant than others, I must say—to the debate on the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2010. I am encouraged to see that, aside from comments straying a little from the mark, essentially the purpose of the bill attracts bipartisan support in the parliament. It is a practice that has continued over a period of successive governments.

The government is happy to facilitate and support the passage of this bill and, more generally, statute law revision bills which perform a vital service in improving the quality of Commonwealth legislation. The series of regular reviews of legislation by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—often occurring during periods of the parliament being prorogued for elections—enables minor errors in the Commonwealth statute books to be efficiently addressed and improves the accuracy and usability of Commonwealth acts. These improvements complement the government’s commitment to creating clearer and more accessible Commonwealth laws.

The bill also amends references to specific ministers and departments and, in doing so, will have a particular impact on the clarity and usability of a large number of Commonwealth laws. By inserting generic references to the names of ministers and departments the bill will allow users of legislation to more easily identify the appropriate minister or department with relevant authority under an act, even after machinery of government changes occur.

This bill was prepared on the initiative of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I commend the office on the quality of the bill and its commitments to maintaining the accuracy and clarity of the Commonwealth statute book. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment