Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the same spirit as the previous two speakers offered their congratulations, I congratulate Stephen Gageler on his appointment to the High Court. I know that there is rejoicing at the New South Wales bar. He is held in very high regard and will be an adornment to the High Court. I think that he is a wonderful replacement for Mr Justice Gummow, who will retire in October—and I will have something to say about Justice Gummow at a later date.

I rise also to speak in support of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012. Bills of this type have been used regularly over the past 30 years as an essential tool in keeping the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up-to-date. Such bills do not make substantive change to the law or implement new government policy. As such, they are rarely controversial. Nonetheless, they fulfil a vital function.

This bill reflects the fact that the government is making sure that Commonwealth law is easy to follow and understand. The government is pursuing a comprehensive deregulation agenda, led by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, to remove or reform unnecessary or poorly-designed regulation and reduce costs to business. This in turn will enhance productivity and competitiveness within Australia and allow Australian companies to expand overseas.

The OECD Review of Regulatory Reform in Australia for 2010 noted:

Australia is one of the front-running countries in the OECD in terms of its regulatory reform practices.

The government's focus is on ensuring that Australia's regulatory framework is fit for purpose, is developed in consultation with stakeholders and does not impose unnecessary compliance cost burdens on businesses and the not-for-profit sector. A good example of this focus is a bill—the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012—which was brought forward by the Attorney-General and recently passed by this House. The sunsetting measures bill will remove thousands of redundant or ambiguous regulations from the federal register of legislative instruments over the coming years. Importantly, this will be done in close consultation with affected industries to avoid confusion or concern about wholesale removal of regulatory structures. Removals of this type would have occurred under the opposition's proposed structure.

The Statute Law Revision Bill 2012 includes amendments to repeal spent legislation and correct typographical errors, to improve the numbering of provisions and to ensure that cross-references remain accurate. Schedule 3 of the bill replaces references to specific civil aviation regulations concerning aircraft with generic references to the principal Civil Aviation Act 1988. Current drafting practice is to avoid referring to particular regulations by name in order to reduce the risk of reader confusion where the names of regulations change or the content of regulations alter. This change is an important step in ensuring that the regulations interact properly with the principal act and that users are able to clearly follow both the parent act and regulations underneath it.

This bill also makes consequential amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. This item of legislation is a cornerstone of Australian legislative interpretation—a fact that is drilled into all first-year law students. It must remain relevant and up-to-date so that it remains a strong, functional guide to other Commonwealth legislation.

The bill also replaces references to specific ministers and departments with definitions which identify ministers and departments by reference to the acts they administer. This will ensure that the references remain accurate even if any specific title changes. There has always been a risk that some references can be missed when ministers and departments change titles, which can lead to confusion or concern about the legal validity of action years down the track. This change is a practical, sensible step to avoid these potential risks in the future.

I take this opportunity to thank and commend the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for its hard work both on this legislation and over the term of this parliament. Drafting complex legislation within tight timeframes is often a thankless task, but the office has delivered the legislation necessary not only to this government's major reforms but also to reforms made by previous governments.

When I was the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs from 1993 to 1996, I had a little bit to do with the Office of Legislative Drafting and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. We are very fortunate that we have very professional public servants supporting this parliament, and we should not take their professionalism for granted. These are people who have dedicated themselves to their jobs, and we as a parliament are better off for it. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context