Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Hansard source

I absolutely do—100 per cent I do. Everybody should be taught how to use apostrophes. But where there are no full stops and where commas are out of place, which might change the context and the meaning, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel ensures that they're right.

I will just digress a little and say there is one fantastic organisation in this building, and there are many, but it's Hansard, because Hansard always gets it right. I mean, we are so blessed to have Hansard and the Parliamentary Library. They are two services that I think we probably undervalue. But I'll tell you what, they report things accurately.

The issues with this: most amendments correct spelling, punctuation, terminology and cross-references, update absolute references and modernised drafting without altering substantive rights, obligations or penalties. The only criminal law amendment repeals an expired transitional authorisation relating to plastic explosives—that's important—and the substantive offences and penalties remain unchanged. The most significant machinery amendment removes superseded veterans' indexation provisions. This is what I want to talk on just a little, because it appears to remove spent legislative machinery rather than alter current entitlements. I think that's important. Many of our veterans do tune in. They do read Hansard, and they are very across and aware of the legislative machinery when it comes to their entitlements.

We are having a debate in the parliament and across the country at the moment about making sure that veterans get their right entitlements. I appreciate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Keogh, has issued a document creating a simpler, easier-to-use system for the veteran community. I think this document should be mandatory reading. We have the MRCA and DRCA and other provisions, which have been lumped into a much easier to follow process.

The Deputy Speaker and I had a discussion about this earlier. I'm concerned about the $5,000 cap on allied health. But when it comes to superseded veterans indexation provisions, we need to make sure that we explain it well to our veterans. I wouldn't want any veteran to think that just updating the statute bill will have in any way an impact upon ex-service men and women's provisions, which they rightly need. I say again that Minister Keogh has provided this document. He writes in this letter to members and senators:

I want you to be assured that when the changes come into effect, no veteran or family member will see an interruption or reduction in payments or benefits they're currently receiving.

I hope that's right, but, certainly with the provision of the improved Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, that document is commended and recommended to members.

Previous bills were introduced as statute law revision bills and statute stocktake bills. The member for Moore mentioned in his speech that there's been 92 years of this particular bill—probably under different guises and different names, but the statute bill we're referring to today is the 2026 version. The most recent act is the Statute Update Act 2016, so it's been a decade. There have been many, many bills passed and a lot of legislation concurred with in that decade. By convention, these bills are prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and confined to technical machinery and non-contentious amendments. Given that, we'll take the government on its word. We hope that their word is their bond when it comes to the Statute Update Bill 2026, and I commend it to the Chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:02

See this speech in context