Bills
Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Hon Nick Goiran (Leader of the Opposition) (5:07 pm): We continue our consideration of this bill. We have just had the opportunity to have questions taken without notice. Prior to that time, when we were looking at this bill, I had reminded members that this is now, essentially, the third attempt by the government to pass this bill, which seeks to repeal several obsolete pieces of legislation on the Western Australian statute. It is rather remarkable that it takes a third parliamentary attempt for this to happen. The parliamentary record indicates that in each instance there has been support by the opposition, and the only reason this has not been done in a previous Parliament is that it simply has not been prioritised by the government of the day. That being the case, nevertheless we have the bill that is presently before us.
As I said, it has a long history, a long genesis, going back to what I referred to as the "Doust report", which was the 99th report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review—its inquiry into the statutes book. In essence, that committee indicated that it might take decades for obsolete legislation to be repealed if the process continues as it is. It would seem to be the case now, in August 2025, that this report from June 2016 is proving to be correct. That was the 99th report in the 39th Parliament. I move now to the following Parliament, the 40th Parliament, in which we had what I might refer to as the "Mischin report", and that is because it was presented by Hon Michael Mischin, who was the Chair of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review at that time. That committee also did an inquiry into the form and content of the statute book. That report was tabled in November 2019. It observed that since report 104, which was tabled in 2016, no statute repeal bills had been tabled. In the period between the Doust report, which was report 99, and the Mischin report, which was report 124, there were a number of other opportunities for the committee to undertake its scrutiny work, not least of which was in report 104, in which it had considered one of these omnibus bills. In report 124, tabled in November 2019, the committee found a number of things. I take the opportunity to draw members' attention particularly to the third paragraph of the executive summary, in which the committee said:
The Committee has found that a significant number of potentially obsolete enactments remain on the statute book. While some mechanisms currently used in Western Australia help to reduce obsolete legislation, they are being underutilised. Other mechanisms are not being used at all.
In this Mischin report from November 2019, 11 recommendations were made. Remember that at the time, in the 40th Parliament, the WA Labor government was in power. There was a recommendation that the government introduce an omnibus bill that repealed obsolete legislation, preferably in that Parliament. That was the second recommendation made in that 124th report.
There was a government response to that report. That government response, amongst other things, said:
The Department of Justice is preparing an omnibus bill repealing obsolete legislation. The Bill will contain all of the Acts and provisions of Acts identified in the Committee's report as being obsolete or requiring further investigation that are suitable for inclusion in the Bill.
This was all happening in the 40th Parliament. Later, we had report 131, which, indeed, was a report by that Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, which was still chaired by Hon Michael Mischin. The committee then specifically looked at one of these omnibus bills, which was then known as the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2020. Members may recall that I mentioned that the government made three attempts to try to get a bill of this sort through the Parliament. This was the first of those three attempts. Hon Michael Mischin chaired this committee and its report was tabled in November 2020. Of course, that 2020 bill lapsed when Parliament was prorogued prior to the 2021 state election, but the committee made certain observations in this report. They identified that a number of obsolete acts and provisions as identified by the government had not been included in the 2020 bill. Keep in mind that in this same Parliament—the 40th Parliament—the standing committee had already drawn to the government's attention that there were a number of pieces of obsolete legislation that ought to be part of an omnibus bill.
The government's response in that 40th Parliament was that it intended to include all those acts and provisions and that the Department of Justice was doing exactly that, yet later in the Parliament—a year later almost to the day—the committee had to regrettably report to the chamber and say that, unfortunately, a number of those acts had not been included in the 2020 bill. It also indicated that more work was required on obsolete subsidiary legislation that had been listed in that earlier report 124 and on any of the unproclaimed acts that had yet to receive royal assent. It is pretty remarkable that that would be the case one year after the committee had identified this issue and the government had said that it was working on it. The record reflects that proved not to be the case.
I want to draw members' attention to an interesting portion of this report. It deals with what is referred to as the Premier's circular. It is not long and it bears quoting in full. In the committee's 131st report in the 40th Parliament tabled in November 2020, paragraph 3 reads:
3.1 One of the Committee's functions is to 'review the form and content of the statute book'.
3.2 As part of this function, it considers and reports on Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bills (commonly referred to as omnibus bills) referred to it by the Legislative Council.
3.3 Such omnibus bills cover a number of diverse or unrelated topics. They repeal Acts that are obsolete or make only minor, non-controversial, amendments to various Acts. Omnibus bills are used to make general 'housekeeping' amendments to maintain the currency of the statute book.
3.4 The development of omnibus bills is overseen by the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has the final decision about whether a matter is suitable for inclusion, in consultation with the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council.
3.5 Premier's Circular 2010/01 'Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill' (Premier's Circular), issued on 11 February 2010, set out what may and may not be included in omnibus bills and helped to ensure that the content of such bills complied with Legislative Council Standing Orders. It is at Appendix 1.
3.6 The Premier's Circular was rescinded in March 2019 and not replaced. The Committee was not informed this had occurred.
3.7 As noted, the Committee is required to consider and report on omnibus bills as part of its terms of reference and the Premier's Circular had governed the drafting and content of such omnibus legislation for close to a decade. While the Committee appreciates that there was no obligation to inform it, it would have been desirable for the Committee to be notified of the change.
3.8 The Committee wrote to the Premier and asked:
why the Premier's Circular was rescinded
why the Committee was not informed of the rescission
what steps have been taken to ensure the Committee is informed of any future amendments or rescissions to Premier's Circulars affecting its terms of reference
how the practice relating to omnibus bills, previously established and supported by the authority of a Premier's Circular, will be maintained without that support and in light of its rescission.
3.9 The Premier advised by letter dated 10 November 2020, which is attached as Appendix 2, that the Premier's Circular:
had been in place for ten years and is now a well-established practice across the public sector. The rescission of this Circular does not diminish the importance of this matter or the work of the Committee, rather it seeks to avoid the continuation or duplication of administrative instruments where well-established and accepted practices already exist.
3.10 The Premier also advised that in response to the Committee's letter:
the Department of the Premier and Cabinet has amended its procedures to ensure that, at the time a Circular is reviewed, the administering agency is reminded to consult all relevant stakeholders, including any Parliamentary Committees. This will also occur following decisions to rescind circulars.
3.11 He further advised that:
all Premier's Circulars will only be valid for the term of the government and will be automatically rescinded on 30 June of an election year, unless evidence supports their continuation.
3.12 The Committee appreciates the Premier's confirmation that previous practice regarding omnibus bills will be continued. It also appreciates his assurance, among other things, that relevant Parliamentary committees will be consulted in the review of Premier's Circulars and regarding decisions to rescind them.
3.13 The Committee notes the Premier's advice that all Premier's Circulars will only be valid for the term of government and automatically be rescinded on 30 June of any election year unless evidence supports their continuation. This is analogous to the Committee's view that any unproclaimed legislation and provisions should be repealed if the Executive has not brought them into operation after 10 years of receiving Royal Assent.
It would be useful, either in reply or when we get to debate on clause 1, if the parliamentary secretary could indicate whether on 31 June this year, it being an election year, any of these Premier's circulars have been rescinded. That was in respect of the first attempt of the WA Labor government to pass, essentially, the bill presently before us, albeit as time has marched on the bill before us is not identical to the 2020 version. That was the first attempt, and that was report 131.
I then move to the 41st Parliament when the WA Labor government made its second attempt to deal with this obsolete legislation. That was in the form of what was known as the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2021. It was also referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in the 41st Parliament. That committee was chaired by Hon Donna Faragher. It tabled its report 135 in August 2021. It noted that the 2021 bill was similar to the 2020 bill that lapsed when the 40th Parliament was prorogued. The committee noted that this bill includes some additional items for repeal and minor drafting changes. The committee reiterated a number of the comments that had been made in the previous report, the second of the Mischin reports, report 131. In particular, the committee highlighted the number of obsolete acts and provisions, as identified by the government, not being included in this bill. It also noted that more work is required on obsolete subsidiary legislation listed in report 124 and unproclaimed acts that have received royal assent. Meanwhile, amongst all this, there was still no mechanism for dealing with unproclaimed acts that have received royal assent. When considering this bill, it is worth members being familiar with recommendations 6 and 7 of the 124th report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. Recommendation 6 reads as follows:
The Government introduce a bill to amend the Interpretation Act 1984 to provide for the automatic repeal of Acts or the provisions of Acts that are to come into operation by proclamation and that are not proclaimed within 10 years of the Act or provision receiving Royal Assent, in the terms set out in Appendix 9.
Further, the report states:
In the event the Government does not accept Recommendation 6, the Committee makes the following recommendation.
That is recommendation 7, which is as follows:
The Government implement a mechanism that is the same as, or similar to, the Statutes Repeal Act S.C. (Statutes of Canada) 2008, c.20.
That is what the committee said in its 124th report tabled in November 2019. That was in the first of the Mischin reports. Now we have the Faragher report of the following Parliament that again brings this to light and attention and notes that nothing has been done in this particular space. I note that in the 40th Parliament, the committee had undertaken some consultation with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. It manifested itself in the committee saying:
The [Canadian Statutes Repeal Act] is achieving its purpose by steadily reducing the number of statutes in the Canadian federal statute book while increasing government accountability for the exercise of the powers delegated by Parliament to bring legislation into force.
As I understand it, in Canada a different mechanism is in place that avoids this situation we find ourselves in of the government trying to pass a bill simply to deal with obsolete legislation and tidy up the statute book. In essence, at the start of the calendar year, a minister, presumably the Attorney General of the day, tables a list of acts that are to be made obsolete and repealed at the end of the year unless a motion is moved in Parliament to put a stop to that. Perhaps it is not that dissimilar to the disallowance of a regulation. It is tabled and then there is the opportunity for Parliament to say it does not want to do that. Canada has a model like that. It is interesting to note that at that time in the 40th Parliament the WA Labor government said this in response:
The Government supports in principle a legislative mechanism to manage unproclaimed enactments.
The Government does not support the Committee's recommendation to amend the Interpretation Act 1984 to provide for the automatic repeal of unproclaimed Acts or provisions, as set out in Appendix 9.
In some circumstances, it is necessary for the commencement of an Act or provision to be delayed. A good example of this is the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2006. The model presented by the Committee does not provide for any flexibility in these circumstances.
The Government will consider implementing a more flexible mechanism, such as the Canadian model set out in the Statutes Repeal Act S. C. (Statutes of Canada) 2008, c.20.
As I say, this is the response from the government in the 40th Parliament. Since then we have had the 41st Parliament, we have had the Faragher report and now we are in the 42nd Parliament, and there is still no sign of any flexible mechanism to deal with these things. It would be instructive if the parliamentary secretary could provide an update to the house about that matter. In the meantime, we have unproclaimed legislation sitting idly on the statute book. We have these obsolete acts that continue to sit there and then we have Parliament's time taken with these otherwise rudimentary matters.
This brings me to the committee's last report, report 153, which members will be aware was tabled this time last week by Hon Dr Steve Thomas. In passing, I make the observation that the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review seems to have a custom, practice or history. A lot of experienced members seem to have been chair of this committee. As I have mentioned, there was the Doust report, the Mischin report, the Faragher report and now the Thomas report. That report 153 was tabled last week on 12 August. As members may now be aware, that committee concluded that the statutes and provisions in this bill before us are appropriate for an omnibus bill. It was particularly pleased with and made mention of the respect for parliamentary sovereignty set out in clause 2.
In conclusion, I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will support the bill. Nevertheless, a few questions remain. Indeed, why has the government not yet introduced a more flexible model for repealing unproclaimed legislation? If it is the government's position that it intends to continue to go down this path, when does it intend to do so? Why are some obsolete and unproclaimed provisions previously identified for appeal still absent from this bill?
For these reasons the opposition supports the bill. We will continue to press the government for the development and creation of a more systemic approach to dealing with the repeal of the statutes and any minor amendments. Other than that, as I indicate, we support the bill.
Hon Dr Brian Walker (5:29 pm): I have only a few words to add on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2025, as much has been admirably demonstrated by my colleague Hon Nick Goiran. It strikes me that what we are faced with here is a bill to deal with obsolete legislation that no longer fits the needs of society. I am reminded of bills that may be centuries old that have been left on the statute book. Is there any particular system in place to identify those that are obsolete and those that are not? For example, I was delighted to hear—this might well please certain members of this chamber who hail from the Emerald Isle—that we now recognise that Ireland is no longer part of the British Empire. That is a wonderful change that I am sure brightens the hearts of many in Australia. There is another one here that is really quite amazing. I think my office staff would be very unhappy with me if I failed to point out that we now have recorded in our legislation that idiots are no longer recognised by the Western Australian legal system, which is absolutely fantastic. It is on page 9 of the explanatory memorandum. That and the use of similar language is something we really ought to deal with. We have talked about gendered language. We have talked about how bills, especially bills dating from imperial times, using ancient language, if you like, really ought to be modernised to reflect the needs of today. In fact, maybe it would be useful to consider at some committee level the need to address a review of all legislation currently on the statute book. We recently dealt with the Firearms Act 1973, which no longer meets the needs of today. Although we might disagree with the changes, we can certainly agree that changes were necessary. I would suggest that we ought to be more keen to see that, like a gardener who looks at the weeds in the garden to ensure that the plants are growing admirably, that the garden looks pretty and that it serves its purpose for fruit and whatever purposes. We should make sure that our legislation has that clean aspect and is regularly pruned so that it is fit for the purposes of today.
Hon Pierre Yang (Parliamentary Secretary) (5:31 pm): Thank you, Deputy President, for the opportunity to make a relatively short contribution on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2025.
Hon Nick Goiran: Deputy Chair!
Hon Pierre Yang: Yes, honourable Leader of the Opposition; I am or I was Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review between 2017 and 2021. Of course, I took a short break from the standing committee between 2021 and 2025, and I must say that I was devastated that I was not on that committee during those four years. I advocated tirelessly for my return to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. To my pleasant surprise, I was promoted and went back to being Deputy Chair of that wonderful committee.
Hon Stephen Dawson: Some would say penance but some would say promotion!
Hon Pierre Yang: As a former practising lawyer, I love the work of that wonderful committee. I had the pleasure of working with a former chair of the committee, Hon Michael Mischin, who I had a great working relationship with. Obviously, I served with Hon Nick Goiran, Leader of the Opposition, along with Hon Dr Sally Talbot, Hon Simon O'Brien and, I think, also Hon Colin de Grussa on the Standing Committee on Legislation between 2017 and 2021.
As I mentioned, I appreciate the opportunity to make a short contribution on the very important bill in front of us. It is important because we want to make sure that our statute book is tidied up and cleaned up so that obsolete legislation and provisions are removed. We have tried to do it three times. This time, with the support of the Leader of Opposition and the opposition, I am absolutely confident that we are fast marching towards the speedy passage of the bill in front of us, and perhaps it will be passed by the end of this sitting day. I may be overly ambitious, but I live in hope that by the end of this sitting day we can pass this bill in this house and hopefully see it eventually given assent and take effect in the very near future.
Hon Nick Goiran: Can you just talk to someone in the other place to make sure it gets passed?
Hon Pierre Yang: I am sure the member can ask the parliamentary secretary in charge of the bill that question during the committee stage and get him to commit to that. I am sure that we will be see the bill come to fruition and our statute books will be cleaned up somewhat.
I want to talk about my involvement with the reports of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. At the outset, I will talk about report 124. I will then move on to report 131, which was tabled in November 2020. Of course, I will make mention of, according to Leader of the Opposition, the so-called Faragher report, which was tabled in August 2021, and the report Hon Dr Steve Thomas tabled earlier this month.
As I mentioned, this bill is a very important piece of legislation for Western Australia and for our statute book. The bill looks to repeal a number of pieces of legislation. If I may, I wish to put on the record that we are repealing the Bell Group Companies (Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds) Act 2015. I will take this opportunity to talk about that in a little detail a bit later. The Curriculum Council (Fees and Charges) Act 2006 is another piece of legislation that we are looking to repeal under this omnibus bill. The other legislation that we are looking to repeal are the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (Consequential Provisions) Act 1998, the Housing Societies Repeal Act 2005, the Mental Health Legislation Amendment Act 2014, the Morawa–Koolanooka Hills Railway Act 1964—I am sure I butchered that name—the Railway Standardisation Agreement Act 1961, the Retirement Villages Amendment Act Amendment 2012, and last but not least the Water Services Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2012.
I mentioned that I will take the opportunity to talk about report 124. Report 124 report was tabled in November 2019. The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review inquired into the form and content of the statute book in previous Parliaments. That inquiry arose from an interim report tabled by the committee in the 39th Parliament in which it reported its concern about the slow pace at which obsolete legislation was identified and repealed in Western Australia. If my memory serves me right, I think the 39th Parliament started in 2013 and concluded in 2017 under the Liberal–National government. It is interesting that the uniform legislation committee noted in report 124 the slow pace at which obsolete legislation was identified and repealed by the previous government. The committee, under the then chair, Hon Michael Mischin, resolved to commence an inquiry to review the form and content of the statute book. Obviously, the terms of reference were to identify enactments that were obsolete, exhausted, expired or as yet unproclaimed, with a view to having them removed from the statute book. To assist Hansard, I am quoting paragraphs 1 and 2 of the executive summary of report 124 of the uniform legislation committee. As the Leader of the Opposition correctly pointed out, the committee looked at how other jurisdictions conducted their procedures and processes for dealing with obsolete legislation. I wish to delve into the details just a little before we move on to report 131.
The uniform legislation committee started the inquiry into the form and content of the statute book in December 2017. The 40th Parliament started in March 2017 after the state election. I want to state that that was the start of the process for report 124. Then the committee proceeded to look into legislation that could be repealed and removed from the statute book in WA, and that came with the delivery of report 131. Of course, that was at the end of the 40th Parliament. I hasten to add that, despite that this is the third attempt to repeal some of the obsolete legislation and provisions, we must remember that in 2020, 2021 and 2022, we were dealing with the once-in-a-lifetime COVID pandemic. There was nothing unusual about us doing it a third time, because we had other competing priorities, including to make sure that WA emerged from the COVID pandemic safe and strong, and we did that. Now we are on an upward trajectory as a state, and it is time to look at obsolete legislation and provisions.
I commend the government for making the effort and looking at the legislation that will be repealed under the bill in front of us today. Hopefully, we can pass the bill by the end of this sitting day. With those words, I wholeheartedly support the bill and commend the parliamentary secretary for his efforts.
Hon Dan Caddy (Parliamentary Secretary) (5:44 pm) in reply: I rise to give my second reading reply speech on the Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Bill 2025. I will start by thanking Hon Nick Goiran, the shadow Attorney General and Leader of the Opposition in this place, and Hon Pierre Yang, my good friend and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, for their contributions to the debate. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the standing committee, led by my good friend Hon Dr Steve Thomas, for its consideration of this bill as set out in report 153, which was tabled last week and has been referred to by other members.
I now take the opportunity to comment on the contributions made and answer to the best of my ability the questions that were posed to me mainly by the shadow Attorney General. I acknowledge that the shadow Attorney General took us on a history of the long gestation—I use that word deliberately—of this bill, with a comprehensive quote of the entire third chapter of report 131, the second of the so-called Mischin reports tabled in 2020. I will do my best to provide answers, but obviously we can use the time in the Committee of the Whole to tidy up anything that is missed.
I will start by saying very pleasingly that Hon Nick Goiran indicated his support for the bill, and I thank the opposition for this support. The honourable member noted, as we are all aware, that this bill has been introduced into Parliament multiple times and has consistently lapsed, and this is effectively our third shot at getting this bill up and passed. The thrust of the honourable member's queries was around why the bill will not repeal all obsolete legislation. In looking at previous reports and trying to understand why some legislation has found itself in this bill but other legislation has not, he referred to report 124 and other reports of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. That report made 11 recommendations for the government's consideration. Before that report there were previous reports, including reports 99, 131, 135 and 153, which was tabled last week.
It is my sense that the member opposite is disheartened to see that many of the matters raised in those previous committee reports remain unaddressed in this bill. That is his opinion. The shadow Attorney General also raised the issue of the 2010 Premier's circular, which has been rescinded, and the fact that it was done so and the committee at the time was not informed. I understand, as I said, that later we will go into Committee of the Whole, so we will get to anything I miss. It has indeed been introduced, as the member said, three times, in slightly different permutations, in 2020–21 and now in 2025.
Actually, I will go back to the start. I note that report 99 had two recommendations, as the honourable member pointed out. Firstly, the government was to give greater priority to identifying and repealing obsolete legislation and look at more robust mechanisms to achieve this. Secondly, it was that a full inquiry into the form and content of the statute book be conducted in the 40th Parliament. That inquiry led to report 124, so I will make some brief comments on that now. At the outset, I must say that the government maintains its position set out in the response that was given to that report. The Inquiry into the Form and Content of the Statute Book report made 11 recommendations on a number of matters relating to the repeal of obsolete legislation and the general upkeep, maintenance and currency of the statute book. This includes but is not limited to automatic sunsetting provisions; to provide, wherever possible, specific dates for commencement of acts and provisions of acts; an annual introduction of omnibus repeal bills; and amending the Interpretation Act 1984 to provide for automatic repeal of acts or particular provisions of acts that have come into operation on proclamation but have not commenced within a 10-year window. Government remains of the view that many of the committee's recommendations do not provide enough flexibility for government to properly prioritise and manage its legislative agenda. The Cook Labor government and, indeed, the McGowan Labor government before it, has an extensive legislative reform agenda. Omnibus and repeal bills of this nature are prioritised as and when the government's broader legislative reform agendas allow. Honourable member, such is the case, regardless of which flavour of government the government of the day happens to be, that is just the practice. That said, I acknowledge that the shadow Attorney General disagrees with this approach and my sense is that he would prefer a more systematic and regular approach to bills like this and that he may well disagree with the government's priorities for its legislative agenda. That is a point of difference that is unlikely to be resolved in this debate or, indeed, today.
All the legislation that was identified by the Standing Committee of Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in appendix 2 of report 124 as suitable for repeal has already been repealed, has expired or is included for repeal in the current bill we are dealing with here today. I want to get to some of the matters that have since been identified by the committee in report 124 as no longer suitable for repeal. An example of that is the Western Australian Tourism Commission Act 1983, which is identified as suitable for repeal in appendix 3, item 5 of report 124. Advice from parliamentary counsel is that this provision, which is a review clause, is not suitable for repeal. This is because it serves as a historic note that a review was required regardless of whether a review was conducted. Some of the matters identified by the committee in report 124 have not been included in the bill because advice from the responsible agency is that the legislation is or needs to be subject to review before a decision can be made. One such example of this would be the Gas Standards Act 1972. The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, as it was then, advised that these provisions require further review before a decision can be made as to whether it is suitable for repeal.
Something that certainly came up in the opposition briefing was around the differences between the 2021 bill and the 2025 bill. When this bill was introduced in April of this year, I tabled a document that outlined the differences between the 2025 bill and the previous iteration of the bill in 2021. A number of provisions in that 2021 bill have since been removed and do not appear in this iteration of the bill in 2025. The tabled document provides an explanation about this, but we can put the reasons for these changes into two broad categories—those being addressed by way of a separate act and those subject to editorial change under the Legislation Act 2021. Some of the provisions of the 2021 bill have been removed from the 2025 bill on the basis that they have already been, or will be, addressed by another act. An example of this is former clause 56 of the 2021 bill, which sought to repeal the Racing and Gambling Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003. This clause has been removed because that act was repealed by the Statutes (Repeals) Act 2014. An example of something that was dealt with through editorial changes by parliamentary counsel under the Legislation Act 2021 is former clause 13 of the 2021 bill, which was a proposed amendment to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Act of 2012 to delete an expired transitional regulation-making power. That has been removed from the 2025 bill because it is an editorial change that can be made directly by parliamentary counsel. The exercise of powers under the Legislation Act, including the timing of the exercise of those powers, is a matter for parliamentary counsel. That is why that is done.
I move on to the Premier's circulars. The shadow Attorney General asked whether we were aware of any of the Premier's circulars being rescinded since 30 June this year, being that this was an election year. I make the preliminary comment that this is sort of outside the scope of this particular bill and the debate around this bill. Obviously, even when we get to Committee of the Whole, I will not have advisers with me from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, but DPC does maintain a public website listing those circulars that have been rescinded. To be helpful to the shadow Attorney General, I can tell them that two circulars are indeed listed as having been rescinded since 30 June. These are Premier's circular 2021/19, Use of WA State Government Badge by Public Sector Agencies and Premier's circular 2022/01, Tenant Rental Credit Scheme for Small Businesses and Not-for-profit Government-owned Buildings. Once again, neither of these are relevant to the subject matter of the bill that we are currently debating. There is no intention to revive the previously rescinded circular about omnibus bills. A well-established practice that is now widely understood in the public sector is that there is publicly available guidance on the Parliamentary Counsel's Office website and the WA government website. The PCO also issues reminders to agencies about the process in its client newsletters. Once again, I thank the members who spoke but who I did not acknowledge before. I thank Hon Dr Brian Walker for his contribution. Thank you again to Hon Pierre Yang for his contribution to this debate and I acknowledge him for his role on the Standing Committee of Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in its last iteration. I note that he did mention the way COVID affected government legislative priorities. I think that is something we absolutely need to bear in mind as well, although it is a minor issue. I thank both him and the shadow Attorney General for their contributions to this debate.
I recommend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
The Deputy President: Members, noting the time, I will leave the chair until the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 6:00:00 pm to 7:00:00 pm
Committee of the whole
The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Simon Ehrenfeld) in the chair; Hon Dan Caddy (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the bill.
Clause 1: Short title
7:02:19 PM
Hon Dan Caddy: I just want to start by reflecting on something I said in my second reading in reply speech, in which I referred to an opposition briefing. Indeed, I was actually referring to conversations I had with the shadow Attorney General. I did not want to mislead the house that there was a briefing. The shadow Attorney General and I spoke at length about this, and he informed me that a briefing would not be required.
Hon Nick Goiran: We are considering clause 1. Firstly, thank you to the honourable parliamentary secretary for making that minor correction. Moving to the first question at this time, I want to refer to report 153 that was tabled last week by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. In particular, I draw to the parliamentary secretary's attention paragraph 5.12 of the report found at page 4. It is a long paragraph, but in essence, it lists a range of matters that have been omitted from this bill that were included in the bill that was before the house four years ago. It provides a series of explanations as to why those statutes have not been included in this bill. Some of the reasons include, for example, if a piece of legislation has already been repealed, it obviously need not be dealt with in this legislation. I understand that a couple of clauses in the previous bill are going to be dealt with in the Evidence Bill that is also before this house. Many of the explanations are self explanatory, but I draw to the parliamentary secretary's attention two acts in particular. One is the State Superannuation (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2000 and the other is the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018. The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review has drawn to our attention that these two acts have been omitted from this bill because they are subject to review. Is the parliamentary secretary in a position to inform the chamber of the genesis of those two statutes being now suddenly subject to review, and why that warrants them no longer being included in this bill? Four years ago, if the bill had passed both houses, they would have, indeed, been repealed.
Hon Dan Caddy: With regard to the first part of the two-part question asked by the shadow Attorney General, former clause 62 amended the State Superannuation (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2000 by deleting provisions that were unproclaimed. The unproclaimed provisions do not impact on the substance of the law, and have no legal effect. The State Superannuation (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2000 will be subject to review in 2025–26 by the Government Employees Superannuation Board, before consideration of repeal of the entire act on the basis that it is obsolete. The second part of the member's question referred to the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018. Former clause 63 amended the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 by deleting part 3, division 8. The reason for the deletion was that part 3, division 8 was unproclaimed; the rest of the act commenced on 1 May 2020. Part 3, division 8 sought to amend the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, which was repealed by section 166 of the Heritage Act 2018. The provisions in part 3, division 8 of the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 cannot come into effect. The provisions have no legal effect and do not impact the substance of the law.
Hon Nick Goiran: Let us just take each of those separately. With regard to the State Superannuation (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2000, there was a clause 62 in the previous bill, four years ago, that, as I understand it, would have repealed provisions within that act, but not repealed the entire act. Certain provisions were going to be repealed and there was a decision by government that those provisions warranted repeal then. Has there been a change in practice? Is this something that has been driven by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office? Can the parliamentary secretary help us understand this? Someone made a decision four years ago to say that those particular unproclaimed provisions should be repealed, but now it is being said, "Let's not do that. Instead, let's have a review of the entire act and we may, indeed, repeal the whole act." To be perfectly frank, I think a case could be made either way, but if this is the new normal, was it a decision made by Parliamentary Counsel that this is how these unproclaimed provisions will be dealt with from now on?
Hon Dan Caddy: In this case, the department is guided by advice from the agency that has responsibility for the substantive act, the Government Employees Superannuation Board. As I think I said in my previous answer, GESB is doing a full review of the entire act.
Hon Nick Goiran: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that. I appreciate that GESB is doing a review of the whole act at the moment, but four years ago, presumably somebody from the agency—again, maybe it was GESB or it might have been the Treasurer's office—said let us include clause 62 in the 2021 bill. Now there seems to have been a change in practice. I want to clarify whether the omission here is because of some systemic approach that has been taken by government to say that it will no longer deal with all these unproclaimed provisions by way of a repeal bill like this or is this just a one-off agency decision?
Hon Dan Caddy: I am informed that this is a specific case, so there is no overall agenda as the member was referencing.
Hon Nick Goiran: Turning to the other matter, which is the Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018, there seems to be a different explanation. To the extent that they are the same—it is also an unproclaimed provision—in this particular instance, it appears that there is no possibility of it ever coming into effect. It has no force, in effect. It cannot come into effect. Again, four years ago, somebody in government decided to include then clause 63. Now there has been a decision not to include it. For the sake of consistency and clarity, is this an individual decision on a case-by-case basis by the particular agency that has responsibility for the Strata Titles Amendment Act or is this some form of systemic matter that has been driven by Parliamentary Counsel or some other agency?
Hon Dan Caddy: This is another individual decision made by the agency. We take advice from those agencies.
Hon Nick Goiran: Moving to a new topic, but still under clause 1, this is further to the comments that I made in my contribution to the second reading debate. On this occasion, I draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to the 124th report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. He will recall that the committee made some findings and recommendations on how we might better deal with these pieces of obsolete legislation, repeals and the like and for a more systemic approach. At that time, the government indicated that it seemed to have some sympathy for the approach that was proposed by the committee. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is in a position to indicate to the chamber whether that position of the government has changed. Does it remain of the view as indicated in its response to the 124th report or has a new position been taken?
Hon Dan Caddy: Our position that was stated in that response is unchanged. The position said that we would consider it. The member has phrased that as us being sympathetic to the act. That is probably going a little bit far. The position in our response to report 124 is unchanged.
Hon Nick Goiran: In my defence, I do not readily have to hand anymore the government response to the 124th report because my good friends in Hansard exercised some coercive control over me at an earlier stage and extracted that document! I do not have it before me, but it is fair to say that it does not include the word "sympathetic". I see that the parliamentary secretary has the document at his disposal. If I remember correctly, recommendations 6 and 7 dealt with this particular issue. Recommendation 6 was about the government introducing a bill to amend the Interpretation Act. If I recall correctly, the government said that it was not inclined to do that. The committee then said, "What about recommendation 7?", which was for the government to implement a mechanism that is the same as, or similar to, the Statutes Repeal Act 2008, or chapter 20 of the 2008 statutes of Canada. It expressed something along the lines that it was sympathetic to that, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary might just indicate to the house what the response was to recommendation 7.
Hon Dan Caddy: I will read the response from the document, as the member requested. The response to recommendation 7 is:
The Government supports in principle a legislative mechanism to manage unproclaimed enactments. The Government does not support the Committee's recommendation to amend the Interpretation Act 1984 to provide for the automatic repeal of unproclaimed Acts or provisions, as set out in Appendix 9. In some circumstances, it is necessary for the commencement of an Act or provision to be delayed. A good example of this is the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2006. The model presented by the Committee does not provide for any flexibility in these circumstances. The Government will consider implementing a more flexible mechanism, such as the Canadian model set out in the Statutes Repeal Act S.C. (Statutes of Canada) 2008 …
To add to that, we are absolutely aware of it but no decision has been made. We are focusing on the progression of this bill. We will continue to progress repeals bills in line with the government's legislative reform agenda.
Hon Nick Goiran: I have no further questions on this clause or any further clauses in the bill, but I will just make an observation at clause 1. It is disappointing that here we are in 2025 and the status of this matter is that the government is still considering the Canadian model. The response that was provided in regard to the 124th report, keeping in mind that the report was tabled in November 2019, so it will not be too long before it is six years that the government at the time said it would consider the Canadian model, and here we are in 2025 and the position is unchanged. I thank the parliamentary secretary for confirming what the position is, but all I can do is implore the Attorney General, through the parliamentary secretary, to expedite the consideration of the Canadian model. That would certainly serve the Parliament the better for it because we would not have to continue to go through these types of repeals and omnibus bills. I will leave my comments there at this time.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 2 to 36 put and passed
Title put and passed
Report
Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted.
Third reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Dan Caddy (Parliamentary Secretary), and transmitted to the Assembly.
