Little Andrew: Legislation Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Legislation Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Legislation Bill and to acknowledge the last speaker Catherine Delahunty. I just say that there is a tension between the simplest language possible being used in legislation and of course the other matter which is precision. There has been a trade-off made over some years now between the length of legislation to ensure that as simple a language as possible is used but also sometimes at the risk of imprecision. One has only to look at the number of amending bills that come back to fix up what were well-intended drafting initiatives that have to be clarified subsequently and indeed at the comments of the judges in the profession themselves who have to make sense of our attempts at trying to make the legislation more accessible. 
But there is no question that the objective of trying to make legislation more accessible and streamlining the process for it in terms of publication and correction is welcome and some might say overdue. To the extent that this bill means that the periodic review of legislation means that those clerical errors that are identified and can be fixed up without changing the substance meaning or intention of the bill can be done that is good. But there is also the publication of legislation. Catherine Delahunty is absolutely correct in that there is no point in claiming as a principle of law in the court that ignorance of the law is no excuse on the one hand but actually making law inaccessible at the very least through the means of publication on the other hand. There is a conflict between those two objectives. The fact that this bill promotes and encourages greater accessibility through online and electronic means is a most welcome development. 
I relayed in an earlier speech on this bill the experience I had recently of a senior member of the Bar—a QC in fact—who had come along to a court hearing armed with large voluminous texts carrying a great weight on this rather frail frame of a person. How easy it would have been had he understood and managed electronic access to the legislation. That would have made his day I am sure a lot easier. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There’s no need to talk about Trevor like that. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: We are generous on this side of the House and no matter who a QC represents whether it is defendants or— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: $14000-a-day QCs? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: —$14000-a-day QCs even they—some of them—struggle with electronic access to legislation and this will make it a lot easier. 
But even when we are dealing with legislation that is somewhat brief and runs to only a few pages—and let me randomly select an example. The Defamation Act for example is a reasonably brief piece of legislation but it is amazing how many lawyers struggle to court with it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is about saving face is it? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Our faces are well saved Mr Henare. My recent experiences of engagements with QCs have left me feeling lighter for the experience happier and most contented with my contributions politically over the last 12 months. I am appreciative of the support I have had from all sections of the House not only from my colleagues on this side but also from one or two on the other side as well. It all goes to illustrate that legislation if it is to be made sense of in a modern democratic State as indeed we are needs to be accessible through all means. This bill is well intentioned and well drafted and for that reason we support it without exception.