Mr PERRETT (10:48 AM) —In preparing for my entry to parliament, between the election and when parliament started I read the biography of the Hon. James Killen, who was a former member for Moreton and a great orator. I read with great enthusiasm a lot of the exchanges in the cut and thrust of parliament, but the legislation before us now is not something that would generate much of that sort of banter. I have been a native title adviser, a mines adviser and a health adviser, and I have worked in industrial law and commercial law, and I would have to say, with respect to the Attorney-General, that this is one of the most boring pieces of legislation I have ever encountered. But for the fact of its contribution to fairness in terms of gender neutral language, it probably would obtain that title.

The Statute Law Revision Bill 2008 runs the ruler over the Commonwealth legislation to improve its quality and accuracy. It is part of the continual process of review that ensures our Commonwealth laws are up to date and reflect the highest standards. Prior to coming into parliament, I spent 11 years as an English teacher and about 10 years as a lawyer. Obviously standards, words and accuracy are very important for an English teacher and also for a lawyer, and I had a look at the make-up of the House of Representatives and the Senate to see how many other people had been teachers or lawyers. There are about 21 teachers, 13 female and eight male; and there are 48 former barristers, solicitors or lawyers, 35 male and 13 female. So obviously the people in this House do spend a lot of time focusing their minds on being accurate.

Mr McClelland interjecting—

Mr PERRETT —I will take that interjection from the Attorney-General. If nothing else, this experience developed in me as an English teacher—and I am sure in my colleagues from teaching and law backgrounds—a keen eye for detail, especially when it comes to language and grammar. As my staff will attest, I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to accurate spelling and correct grammar.

One of the ways we can ensure high standards of literacy among our children is to make sure that we do our best to get it right every single time. That is why I think it is especially important that public documents and certainly Commonwealth legislation are of the highest standard and accuracy. Some members may think that this bill is insignificant—and I do not want to take anything away from the member for Blair’s previous praise of the legislation—because the legislation is merely making technical corrections to legislation without altering the content of the law.

I am sure we will debate much more important legislation than this. However, minor technical errors can sometimes hang around and before you know it they are here to stay. In fact my mother’s maiden name of Morrissy is misspelt because when someone came to Australia they obviously knew their last name but did not know how to spell it—either that or I come from a long line of dyslexics or bad spellers; I am not sure. Also my electorate of Moreton—as you would be well aware, Deputy Speaker Bird—is spelt M-o-r-e-t-o-n, but it was actually named after the Earl of Morton, which is spelt M-o-r-t-o-n. Somewhere in history it was misspelt, perhaps by one of my ancestors, and therefore Moreton gained an ‘e’ and that is how it has remained ever since.

This bill contains four schedules to amend or repeal more than 150 acts. Schedule 1 amends minor and technical errors contained in principal acts. The kinds of corrections we are talking about here concern spelling, punctuation and numbering. Schedule 2 amends errors contained in amending acts and misdescribed or redundant amendments. This schedule also corrects errors in cross-references to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. This act has been incorrectly described as the Australian Citizenship Act 2006. The Australian Citizenship Bill was introduced in November 2005 and was given assent in March 2007. However, the act was incorrectly labelled the Australian Citizenship Act 2006—something to get some of my former law lecturers frothing at the mouth but probably not something that has grabbed the imagination of the Australian public. Schedule 3 repeals obsolete acts and makes consequential amendments to provisions of other acts that refer to a repealed act. Finally, schedule 4 amends a number of acts to replace gender specific language with gender neutral language. It includes more than 500 amendments to 88 acts.

I understand that there is still some work to be done to ensure Commonwealth legislation is contemporary and free from inappropriate gender-specific language. Of course, this involves a review of all legislation passed since Federation. However, no matter how onerous, the parliament must lead by example in this regard. I commend the work done by the former government to kick off some of this.

Just as we have passed legislation in this House to amend laws discriminating against same-sex couples, so we must ensure we use inclusive language for all. Obviously our language defines our culture. Language is a very powerful tool, Deputy Speaker—which is why I use the term ‘Deputy Speaker’, which is gender neutral language. I know other people use gender specific language, but I believe that you are a Deputy Speaker and therefore we should address you as such. Language defines our culture in so many ways, so we must give good examples. We must ensure that everybody is recognised equally by the law. Nobody would expect any less of the parliament.

The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 includes measures to achieve high drafting standards, particularly with regard to gender inclusive language. It requires the secretary to take steps to prevent the inappropriate use of gender specific language in legislative instruments, to advise rule makers of inappropriate use of gender specific language in legislative instruments that have already been made and to notify both houses of parliament when a rule maker is so advised.

I take you back to that list of former barristers, solicitors and lawyers in the current parliament and note that the make-up is 35 men and 13 women. In our law schools, that is not the case. The majority of law students are actually female, my wife being one of them. However, the senior boardrooms of our top law firms do not reflect that, do not reflect a majority of females, so in some small way this legislative process that the Attorney-General has commenced is sending a good message to our female law students.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for drafting this bill. Even for a grammatical stickler like me, this kind of review of Commonwealth legislation is a tedious task, but the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has done an outstanding job. I also thank the Attorney-General for his input and for introducing this bill and I hope he will forgive my earlier comments! I commend the bill to the House.