Clendon David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): Indeed it will Ruth yes. And in that spirit may I begin by acknowledging the contribution of Ruth Dyson—a very succinct but also quite comprehensive description of the nature and purpose of statutes amendment bills and Acts in their own right. The unique feature of them is that they are agreed to in large part prior to being presented to the House. They are inherently non-controversial although I do note the select committee having done its work well has found one or two matters that are more appropriately dealt with elsewhere and more power to the committee for having done that.It is customary to say it is a pleasure to rise to speak and of course it is as ever a privilege to rise to speak but it is also something of a surprise to be debating this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) this evening. Until about 5.15 p.m. this evening we believed that tonight we would be in urgency debating the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill. It was a considerable surprise to discover at about 5.15 p.m. that apparently the Government does not yet have its ducks in a row and it is not ready to undertake that debate. We look forward with some interest to see what will be sprung on us tomorrow morning.To return to this bill it is an omnibus bill and it covers some 30-plus pieces of legislation that are amended by it. I think many of those amendments highlight the importance of clarity of language—that legislation expresses in the clearest way possible the intention of the legislators. It is the role of the courts of course to interpret legislation to implement it and apply it and indeed the role of other organisations and agents of the State and the private sector and it is critically important that we get the language as clear and unambiguous as we can. Of course one of the purposes of these bills is to remedy examples where that language has proven to be less than accessible or less clear than it might be.I would like to just mention in passing two particular parts of the bill being Part 23 and Part 24. Part 23 deals with some amendments to the Official Information Act 1982. It deals with as a previous speaker commented—Mr Hudson I think outlined that it does explain under what circumstances requests under the Act may be made orally and the obligations on both parties to ensure that there is some clarity about what is being asked. It is a more or less technical change to the Act but none the less a useful one. Part 24 deals with the Ombudsmen Act 1975 and again it just clarifies and spells out the situation and the conditions under which the Ombudsman may refuse to investigate a complaint if the Ombudsman believes that there are adequate remedies to be found elsewhere or that the matter is trivial or vexatious—there are a number of provisions there. It just spells out with some clarity how and in what circumstances the Ombudsman may refuse to or choose not to pursue an investigation into a complaint.I think it is interesting that what links those two parts of the bill is what is happening currently of course and that is that the Ombudsman is undertaking an investigation into the implementation of the Official Information Act. Notwithstanding that we are making some minor technical changes to it the Ombudsman has stated that she believes that the Act is fit for purpose and that it is serving us well in terms of its intention and structure but she believes that an inquiry is needed to assure the public “that both the letter and the spirit of the law are being observed by the custodians of public information.”I think it is to the considerable credit of the Ombudsman that she is undertaking that investigation given that there have been rumblings concerns and expressions of concern about examples of alleged abuse of the Act and of manipulation of it. It is to the credit of Dame Beverley Wakem who of course has been an Ombudsman for some 10 years 7 of them as Chief Ombudsman and who has certainly brought credit on herself and on that office. So we look forward with interest to that investigation and to see what it produces.I think that I will not endeavour to speak to the other 29 or 30 parts of the bill but will simply say that the Greens do support this bill.