The legislation states it is 'current from 1 July 2020 to date' while simultaneously stating the 'File last modified 31 October 2025', yet the access date shown is 3 April 2026. This creates an ambiguity about whether the version accessed is actually current, as the file modification date precedes the access date by approximately 5 months, potentially meaning the version is not as current as claimed.
The currency statement asserts the version is current up to the access date of 3 April 2026, but the file modification date of 31 October 2025 suggests the document has not been updated for approximately 5 months prior to access. These two statements are in tension: if the file has not been modified since October 2025, it cannot be reliably asserted to be current 'to date' as of April 2026 without qualification.
Sections 6A, 6B, and 6C each contain subsections that repeal themselves on specific dates (31.12.2026, 30.11.2026, and 31.8.2027 respectively). However, the entire Regulation is also scheduled for automatic staged repeal on 1 September 2027 under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. Section 6C repeals itself at the end of 31.8.2027 — the same date the whole Regulation is automatically repealed. This makes the self-repeal of 6C entirely redundant and of no legal effect whatsoever.
Section 6A is set to repeal itself at the end of 31.12.2026, which is after sec 6B repeals itself (end of 30.11.2026) but before the whole Regulation is repealed (1 September 2027). This creates a cascading self-destruction sequence within a single instrument that is itself being destroyed, raising the question of whether any of these bespoke repeal mechanisms serve a purpose that the omnibus staged repeal would not have served anyway.
Section 4(2) provides that 'nothing in this Act applies to any body, organisation or agency, however described, that is involved in the collection of information or intelligence.' This is extraordinarily broad and, read literally, would exclude the Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission, and every other law enforcement agency defined in s6A from the Act's operation, since all of them are 'involved in the collection of information or intelligence.' This would render the entire Act inoperative.
'Computer' is defined to mean 'all or part of: (a) one or more computers; or (b) one or more computer systems; or (c) one or more computer networks; or (d) any combination of the above.' This definition is circular: a 'computer' is defined by reference to 'one or more computers.' The Act provides no base definition of 'computer' to anchor the recursive reference.
The legislation states it is 'current from 13 October 2015 to date (accessed 1 April 2026 at 23:13)' but was only 'last modified 5 July 2017'. This creates a temporal absurdity where the document purports to be current to a future date (from the perspective of the file modification date) while simultaneously claiming no substantive updates have occurred since 2017.
The status information asserts the site is kept current within 3 working days of any legislative change, yet the file modification date has not advanced beyond 5 July 2017 despite the currency claim extending to 1 April 2026. If the 3-working-day update commitment were being honoured and any amendments had been made in that nine-year window, the file modification date should reflect a more recent date.
Circular definition of 'railway': 'Railway means the railway and rail transport infrastructure situated, or proposed to be situated, within the Surat Basin rail corridor land.' The term 'railway' is defined using the word 'railway' itself, creating a circular definition that provides no actual meaning.
Section 8 imposes a mandatory obligation on the Minister ('must give a copy') but then declares that failure to comply with that obligation does not affect the validity of the instrument. This renders the mandatory obligation practically meaningless and unenforceable — it is a duty with no consequence.
The dictionary section refers to 'schedule 5' as defining particular words, but the amendment history note states definitions are located in 'schedule 2 (Dictionary)'. These cannot both be correct simultaneously.
Section 6(8) states that a retired Supreme Court judge who 'starts the hearing of a proceeding' before their commission ends 'remains a judge for the purposes of finishing the proceeding' despite s6(6) imposing a hard 78-year age limit. This creates an open-ended exception: a judge could theoretically start a hearing the day before turning 78 and remain a judge indefinitely to finish it, completely defeating the age limit.
The legislation states it is 'current from 21 February 2018 to date' while simultaneously stating the file was last modified on 15 February 2019 — nearly a full year after the stated commencement date, suggesting substantive changes occurred that are not reflected in the version descriptor.
The document states legislation 'is usually updated within 3 working days after a change to the legislation,' yet the Table of Amending Instruments is provided by hyperlink rather than inline, making it impossible to verify from the face of the document whether any such updates have actually occurred or whether the version presented is genuinely current.
The instrument states it is 'current from 20 December 2017 to date' yet the file was last modified on 15 December 2017 — five days before the instrument's own stated commencement date.
The statement 'Legislation on this site is usually updated within 3 working days after a change to the legislation' appears as a blanket qualifier on the same page that asserts the legislation is definitively 'current to date', creating a self-undermining currency guarantee.
The document states it is 'current from 16 December 2015 to date (accessed 5 April 2026 at 18:24)' while simultaneously stating 'File last modified 5 July 2017'. These are irreconcilable: if the file was last modified in 2017, it cannot meaningfully claim currency to 2026 without having been updated.
The legislation claims to be 'current' as accessed on 5 April 2026, which is a future date relative to any realistic drafting or publication context, raising questions about whether currency can be prospectively asserted for an indeterminate future date.
The legislation states it is 'current from 30 September 2009 to date' while simultaneously stating 'File last modified 17 June 2022', creating an ambiguity about whether the version actually reflects amendments made up to 2022 or only the original 2009 instrument.
The statement that legislation is 'usually updated within 3 working days after a change' is a qualified promise that is unenforceable and creates no legal obligation, yet appears in a legally authoritative document as if it carries normative weight. A 'usually' standard in a legal instrument is meaningless as a compliance benchmark.
The document states it is 'Version current from 13 August 2025 to date (accessed 5 April 2026 at 11:39)' while also stating the file was last modified 13 August 2025. The access timestamp of 5 April 2026 is embedded in a static document header, meaning the purported 'current' access date is hardcoded rather than dynamic, making the currency claim potentially misleading or false for any reader accessing the document on any other date.
The instrument asserts it is 'Version current from 13 August 2025 to date' while simultaneously disclaiming that 'legislation on this site is usually updated within 3 working days after a change.' These two statements are in tension: the document cannot simultaneously guarantee it is current 'to date' while acknowledging updates may lag by up to 3 working days.
The Status Information asserts that all provisions displayed have commenced, yet the Notes simultaneously disclose that certain future self-repeal amendments are NOT included in the current display. This creates a representational contradiction: the version purports to be complete and current while expressly acknowledging it omits operative future-dated amendments that are already embedded within the very provisions being displayed.
Section 6C(3) purports to repeal section 6C at the end of 31 August 2027. The staged repeal of the whole Regulation also takes effect on 1 September 2027 (i.e., the beginning of the day after 31 August 2027). These two events are effectively simultaneous. Depending on interpretation of 'end of' versus 'beginning of', either the self-repeal is redundant (the staged repeal kills everything anyway) or the self-repeal occurs a split instant before the staged repeal, making the sequencing legally meaningless. Either way, the provisions are irreconcilable in practical effect.
Paragraph (db) of 'relevant offence' defines an offence as a relevant offence if a warrant 'is issued or given (or is sought)' for the purposes of an integrity operation in relation to that suspected offence. This creates a bootstrapping problem: the definition of 'relevant offence' is partly contingent on whether a warrant has been sought, but a warrant can only lawfully be sought in relation to a 'relevant offence.' The act of seeking the warrant partially determines whether the predicate condition (relevant offence) is satisfied.
The definition of 'disrupting data held in a computer' includes 'copying' data. Copying data does not disrupt it in any ordinary sense — the original data remains wholly intact and unaltered. Treating copying as 'disruption' conflates two fundamentally different concepts and means that ordinary computer access operations (which may involve copying data) could simultaneously constitute 'disruption,' triggering the more onerous data disruption warrant regime.
10 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Section 22(2)(a) grants the Coordinator-General or associated person power to 'do anything on the land' when investigating potential suitability for corridor expansion. This is an extraordinarily broad and effectively unlimited power, constrained only by the vague qualifier 'to the extent reasonably necessary or convenient'. The power to 'do anything' is logically inconsistent with having any defined limit at all.
Where an authorised person's associated person causes damage under a works authority, the compensation notice must be given 'to the Coordinator-General' (s.27(2)(b)), yet under s.26(3) it is the authorised person (not the Coordinator-General) who is liable for that compensation. This creates a procedural absurdity where the landowner must notify one party (Coordinator-General) to claim from a different liable party (the authorised person).
10 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The eligibility criterion for reserve judges from interstate/federal courts requires that the person 'has not reached 70 years of age' at the time of appointment, but s6A(3)(b)(ii) then says their appointment ends when they reach 70. This means a person could be validly appointed at age 69 years and 364 days, only to have their appointment expire the following day.
Section 6A(4) (the 'despite subsection (3)' carve-out for finishing proceedings) applies only to reserve judges 'engaged under section 6B'. However, s6A(3) terminates appointments on reaching the age limit. A reserve judge who has reached 78 (or 70 for non-QLD judges) and whose commission has accordingly terminated cannot be 'engaged under section 6B' at that point, making the carve-out potentially self-defeating for age-based terminations.
11 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Every heading and section title in this instrument is duplicated verbatim (e.g., 'Status Information Status Information', 'Currency of version Currency of version', 'Authorisation Authorisation'). This creates an absurd document where no substantive operative rule is visible — the entire instrument as presented consists solely of repeated metadata headings with no actual amending provisions.
The instrument claims to be current from its commencement date of 21 February 2018 without interruption, yet the file modification date of 15 February 2019 implies the document was altered approximately 12 months after commencement. These two statements cannot both be fully accurate: either the version is not continuously current from 21 February 2018 (because it was modified), or the modification date is erroneous.
Every heading in the document is duplicated verbatim (e.g., 'Supreme Court Amendment Rules Supreme Court Amendment Rules 2017', 'Status Information Status Information', 'Authorisation Authorisation'), suggesting either a structural rendering error or genuine legislative duplication that creates ambiguity about which instance of each heading governs.
The instrument purports to be operative from 20 December 2017, yet the authoritative file was last modified on 15 December 2017, five days prior to commencement. The file modification date and the commencement date are mutually inconsistent.
1 more generated issue for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The statement 'Legislation on this site is usually updated within 3 working days after a change to the legislation' uses the qualifier 'usually', which renders the currency guarantee legally meaningless. A user relying on the site for current law cannot determine whether they fall within the 'usual' case or an exception.
The document asserts ongoing currency to the access date of 5 April 2026, yet the file modification date is recorded as 5 July 2017 — approximately nine years earlier. These two statements directly contradict one another: currency to 2026 implies the file reflects legislative changes up to that point, while a 2017 modification date implies it does not.
1 more generated issue for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The version currency statement implies the document reflects the state of the law as enacted on 30 September 2009 and continuing unchanged, yet the file modification date of 17 June 2022 indicates the document was altered nearly 13 years later. These two statements are in tension: either the instrument has been amended (making '30 September 2009' a misleading commencement reference) or the 2022 modification was purely administrative, which is not disclosed.
Every heading in the document is duplicated verbatim (e.g., 'Supreme Court (Fees) Amendment Supreme Court (Fees) Amendment Rules 2025', 'Status Information Status Information', 'Currency of version Currency of version', 'Authorisation Authorisation'). This structural duplication is internally incoherent and, if treated as operative text, would create ambiguity as to which instance of a heading governs.
The instrument simultaneously claims to be current 'to date' and acknowledges a potential publication lag of up to 3 working days. These statements directly contradict each other: the first asserts completeness and currency as of access; the second concedes the published version may be behind the operative law.