 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
THE CARRIERS ACT REPEAL BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Carriers Act 1891 is a quaint relic of a statute. On reading it, it is difficult to imagine the last time that it would have been relied on in the course of day-to-day business in this state. It makes gently entertaining reading for those members who have nothing better to do, listing as it does all sorts of fascinating possessions which will not be covered for liability for loss over a value of $20, which is included in the actual text of the act.
As I say, it remains as an oddity, an item of curiosity rather than effective legislation. In his second reading explanation, the Attorney-General observes that there are probably very few, if any, common carriers in South Australia. I imagine that there are even fewer stagecoach proprietors who lie awake at night wondering how they are affected by the Carriers Act. Mail contractors no doubt have their liability more appropriately covered by Commonwealth legislation relating to Australia Post.
The Democrats see no need to hang on to the relics of the 1890s in our statute books unless they serve some useful purpose. It is quite clear that this statute does not. However, as a little mental legal arithmetic for the Attorney-General, a minor piece of homework for him or his staff, I note that the final section of the Carriers Act 1891 repeals an Act of the Imperial Parliament II George IV and I William IV, chapter 68. I ask the Attorney: if we repeal the Carriers Act does that mean that this Imperial Act is then revived in South Australia? If so, what effect, if any, will that have? The Democrats support the second reading.
Extract from Hansard Legislative
Council |
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I thank members for their indication of support for the bill. This is, I suppose, historic. This act is over 100 years old and, as we approach the end of this century, we are clearing this one from the statute book. The Hon. Ian Gilfillan raised a question about the revival of common law. I followed that up, and the advice I have is that, as no contrary intention is expressed in the repealing act, section 17 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 operates to prevent the 1830 imperial act from being revived. Section 17 provides:
Where a repealing enactment is repealed by an act, there is no revival of any act or enactment previously repealed unless the contrary intention is expressed.
I think that deals adequately with the honourable member's point.
