Interpretation Ordinance 1968 (CI)

Overview

The Interpretation Ordinance 1968 was enacted to amend the existing Interpretation Ordinance 1958-1967. This legislative instrument was introduced to address the need for updates and clarifications in the definitions and provisions applicable to ordinances generally, as well as to refine the roles and responsibilities of the Administrator within the legislative framework of Christmas Island. The enactment was overseen by the Governor-General, acting on advice from the Federal Executive Council, and was made under the authority of the Christmas Island Act 1958-1966. The policy objective of this amendment was to ensure that the interpretations and applications of legislative terms remain aligned with the current administrative structures and functions of the territory.

Scope and Application

The Interpretation Ordinance 1968 amends the Interpretation Ordinance 1958-1967, establishing its citation as the Interpretation Ordinance 1958-1968. This legislation applies to the Territory of Christmas Island and serves to refine the definitions and interpretations relevant to the administration and enactment of ordinances within this territory. It specifically modifies the definition of "the Administrator" to refer to the Administrator of the Territory under the Administration Ordinance 1968, while also removing the definition of "the Official Representative." Additionally, it introduces a new section that interprets references to the Administrator to include any person exercising the Administrator's powers and functions. This amendment streamlines the legislative framework, ensuring clarity in the administration and enforcement of ordinances within Christmas Island.

Key Provisions

The Interpretation Ordinance 1968 primarily focuses on amending the Interpretation Ordinance 1958-1967. It introduces several changes to the existing legislation, primarily by updating and streamlining the definitions and provisions applicable to ordinances generally. Section 1 provides the short title and citation of the Ordinance, referring to it as the Interpretation Ordinance 1968, and indicates how the amended Principal Ordinance will be cited. Section 2 establishes the commencement date of the Ordinance, which is to be determined by a notice under the Administration Ordinance 1968. Section 3 modifies the Principal Ordinance by amending the heading of Part II to reflect the changes in the number of sections it contains. The primary changes introduced by Section 4 redefine the term ‘the Administrator’ to mean the Administrator of the Territory under the Administration Ordinance 1968. This definition replaces the previous definition of ‘the Official Representative’, which has been omitted. Section 5 introduces a new section, 6b, which clarifies that references to the Administrator in any Ordinance are deemed to include the person exercising the powers and functions of the Administrator under sections 7 or 8 of the Administration Ordinance 1968, unless the contrary intention appears. Finally, Section 6 repeals Section 17 of the Principal Ordinance, which previously allowed the Minister to delegate functions under Ordinances. In terms of obligations, the Act requires that any references to the Administrator in existing or future ordinances now include the person exercising the Administrator’s powers and functions. This amendment aims to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the term ‘Administrator’ across various ordinances. The repeal of Section 17 removes the previous authority for the Minister to delegate certain functions, which may require the enacting of new provisions to cover these functions if necessary. For breaches of the provisions outlined in this Ordinance, there are no specific offences, penalties, or civil/criminal consequences mentioned in the text. The primary focus of the legislation is on clarifying definitions and provisions applicable to ordinances generally, rather than on enforcing compliance through penalties. However, any failure to adhere to the amended definitions and provisions could potentially lead to legal disputes or challenges in the interpretation of ordinances, which could be resolved through the courts.