Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Statute Law Update Bill 2016 on behalf of the opposition. This bill was previously introduced into the last parliament but lapsed. It was reannounced in August as part of Mr Turnbull 25-point battle plan, supposedly to be expedited through the parliament. This bill makes four categories of technical noncontroversial changes to the Commonwealth statute book. These are essentially only matters of drafting style.

The bill amends a range of older Commonwealth acts so that penalties presently set at specific dollar amounts are instead set at the equivalent number of penalty units, as is modern drafting practice. This will make the acts affected easier to understand and apply. Presently any penalty set in a dollar amount in Commonwealth legislation is converted into penalty units in accordance with section 4AB of the Crimes Act 1914. Under that provision the number of penalty units applying to an offence is calculated by dividing the listed dollar amount by 100 and rounding up to the nearest whole number. This provision was added to the act alongside the introduction of the penalty unit system in 1992. At the time, penalty units were set at $100. However, this has now been increased several times and penalty units are now $180. As a consequence, section 4AB now has the perverse consequence that the actual penalties for offences are substantially higher than those listed on the face of the relevant legislation.

The bill also removes references to maximum penalties in various acts. This is a drafting change which will have no legal consequence. Usual practice is to refer only to a penalty, and section 4D of the Crimes Act states that any listed penalty is taken to mean the maximum penalty.

The bill amends provisions in various acts, stating the evidentiary effect of various kinds of certificates, registers and other instruments. Presently those provisions provide that the relevant instrument is evidence of what it states. The bill makes a technical drafting change so that those provisions instead state that the relevant instrument is prima facie evidence of what it states. This brings those provisions into accordance with modern drafting practice.

The bill amends four acts which presently refer to Australian aircraft or aircraft registered or required to be registered under the Civil Aviation Regulations or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. There is no concept of Australian aircraft under current civil aviation regulations, and modern drafting practice is to avoid references to specific named regulations. The bill accordingly amends provisions so that they refer simply to regulations made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

In late October we heard of the Prime Minister's 25-point battle plan—we were told 25 reforms would have to be rushed through the parliament as a matter of priority. Incredibly, this bill, which was first introduced in the last parliament on 17 March, was one of those 25 points. This bill implements a range of drafting amendments across the Commonwealth statute book. Those amendments have little if any legal effect—they are merely matters of drafting style. It is important that Commonwealth legislation is continually tweaked to ensure that it is clear, coherent and comprehensive. Courts, officials, lawyers and the general public should be able to understand the effect of the law as easily as possible. The changes in this bill assist with this and Labor is happy to support them. But let us be clear: this is not groundbreaking reform; it is not bold policy action. The Prime Minister should be embarrassed that his stocks have sunk so low, that his government is so adrift, that he has to truss up routine legislative work like this as some kind of policy masterstroke. I commend the bill to the chamber.