[blml] ...law 24 and law 49... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Hans van Staveren:

[snip]

>Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably
>an intention that director should rule more strict in the
>49 case than the 24 case, but is that really meant to be?

Richard Hills:

"Probably an intention"?  I prefer possibly an intention.
Another possibility is a failure of comparative proof-
reading between two Laws widely differing in Law numbers.

In the 1997 Lawbook there was a difference in wording
between the strict Law 73C "carefully avoid taking any
advantage that" and the loose Law 75 footnote "careful not
to base subsequent actions on".

Players who claimed, "I was always going to choose logical
alternative P," could point to the 1997 Law 75 footnote as
justification, despite Law 73C requiring them to choose
the less successful logical alternative Q.

But in the 2007 Lawbook the new Law 75 (successor to the
1997 Law 75 footnote) has been harmonised in wording with
Law 73C - including addition of a cross-reference - thanks
to one of the 2007 successes in comparative proof-reading.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Governance & Standards Section
National Training Branch
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 8439
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm