The Notice purports to designate a corridor 'from Turners Marsh to Lilydale' for both 'Strategic and Recreational Use', but no substantive provisions defining what constitutes permissible strategic or recreational use within the corridor appear in the document as provided. The title promises regulatory content that is entirely absent from the body of the instrument.
The file is stated to have been 'last modified 18 March 2020', yet the Notice is dated and in force from '27 March 2020'. This means the authorising file predates the instrument's commencement by 9 days, raising the question of whether the version available is the version actually in force.
The document references a 'Table of Amending Instruments' via a hyperlink, implying the Notice has been amended, yet the Status Information states the version is 'current from 27 March 2020 to date' with no amendment dates identified. If amendments exist, the currency statement as presented is potentially misleading or incomplete.
The statement that 'legislation on this site is usually updated within 3 working days after a change to the legislation' creates a legally absurd situation: during those up-to-3 working days, the version accessible to the public may not reflect the law actually in force, yet the site presents a definitive 'current version' with a specific access timestamp implying accuracy.
2 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The Notice title references both 'Strategic and Recreational Use' suggesting dual and potentially conflicting primary purposes for the same corridor infrastructure, with no visible priority hierarchy established in the provided text.
The legislation states it was 'accessed 8 April 2026 at 1:20' while the document metadata simultaneously declares the file was 'last modified 29 June 2022'. The access date of 2026 post-dates the analysis context, creating a temporal inconsistency in the document's own self-referential dating.
The legislation states it is 'current from 29 June 2022 to date' while simultaneously being an Amendment Notice to a parent instrument, yet no substantive operative provisions are present in the reproduced text to determine what is actually being amended.
The title refers to a corridor 'from Lilydale Falls to Tonganah' but the instrument is an Amendment Notice, not the principal instrument. An Amendment Notice does not itself define or establish a corridor, yet the geographic scope is embedded in the title as if it were a substantive descriptor of the notice's own content rather than a reference to the parent instrument being amended.
The file is stated to have been last modified on 24 July 2019, yet the version is stated to be current from 26 August 2019. A file cannot be authoritatively 'last modified' before the version it describes came into force.
The instrument is described as current from 26 August 2019, but the authorisation metadata records the file as last modified on 24 July 2019 — a date approximately five weeks before the stated commencement. These two dates are irreconcilable: a version that became current on 26 August 2019 must have been finalised at or after that date, not before it.
The legislation states it is 'current from 1 July 2019 to date' but the file was 'last modified 27 May 2019' — the currency commencement date postdates the last recorded modification, meaning the 'current' version was ostensibly current before it was finalised.
The metadata states legislation 'is usually updated within 3 working days after a change' yet simultaneously asserts the file was last modified 27 May 2019 while the access date is 2 April 2026 — a gap of nearly seven years with no recorded modification, which either means no amendments have been made (plausible but notable) or the update guarantee is not being met.
The interest rate formula requires adding the bank bill yield rate 'for each day the interest accrues' to 8%, but the definition of 'bank bill yield rate' fixes that rate to the monthly average for May of the preceding financial year. The rate is therefore identical every day within a given financial year, making the 'for each day' language in subsection (3)(a) meaningless and potentially implying a daily recalculation that never actually varies.
The fee-setting formula in subsection (2) requires the issuing entity to consider a broad range of qualitative and market-based factors to arrive at a 'reasonable' amount, but subsection (3) then constrains that amount to mandatory minimum and maximum bands in schedule 2. If the entity's genuine assessment of reasonableness falls outside the prescribed band, it is legally required to set an unreasonable fee, directly contradicting the 'reasonable' standard imposed two subsections earlier.
The section states 'the person is travelling stock under a stock route travel permit' as a ground for applying for an agistment permit. A person cannot be 'travelling stock' — stock are animals. The drafter appears to mean 'the person is travelling stock pursuant to a stock route travel permit' but the phrasing creates a legal nonsense where a human being is characterised as livestock.
Section 111(2) requires the local government plan's start day to be within 1 year after notification of the State strategy. Section 111(3)(b) then provides the plan stops having effect 1 year after notification of a NEW strategy. If the State strategy has a maximum 5-year duration (s.100) but the local plan can only remain valid for 1 year after a new strategy notification, there is a potential gap period where no valid local plan exists if the local government does not renew within 1 year, yet the obligation to manage stock routes continues under s.112.
The Act cites itself as the 'Stevedoring Industry Act 1965-1973' in section 1(1), yet section 1(3) states the Principal Act as amended by this Act may be cited as the 'Stevedoring Industry Act 1956-1965'. The short title of the amending Act includes '1973', which is impossible at the time of enactment in 1965, suggesting the citation was retrospectively inserted and creates a temporal absurdity in the Act's own self-description.
Section 29(1A) inserted into the Principal Act declares that ANY conviction 'of an offence against any law' is automatically deemed a 'reasonable requirement as to suitability'. This is overbroad to the point of absurdity — a parking fine, jaywalking, or any trivial historical offence under any law anywhere would automatically disqualify a person from registration, with no discretion and no proportionality.
The definition of 'instrument' as 'any document' is extraordinarily overbroad. Under this definition, a shopping list, a birthday card, or a Post-it note would qualify as an 'instrument', creating the potential foundation for almost anything to become a statutory instrument if it satisfies s.7.
Section 7 defines a 'statutory instrument' as including a 'statute', meaning a statute can be a statutory instrument made under an Act. This creates a recursive conceptual absurdity: a 'statute' (typically understood as primary legislation) is listed as a type of subordinate instrument made under an Act, conflating two fundamentally different categories of law.
The Northern Territory is simultaneously included in the definition of 'State' and explicitly excluded from the definition of 'Territory'. This creates a bizarre legal fiction where the Northern Territory is a 'State' for purposes of this Act despite not being a State under the Constitution or any other general legal framework.
Subsection 6(3) simultaneously states that subsection (2) does NOT authorise use of a statutory declaration as evidence in judicial proceedings, AND that nothing in section 6 PREVENTS such use. The section both withholds authorisation and withholds prohibition in the same breath, leaving the actual legal status of statutory declarations as judicial evidence entirely unresolved by the provision.
The Act states it is 'current from 31 October 2016 to date' while simultaneously stating 'File last modified 5 July 2017', meaning the published version postdates the currency start date by approximately 8 months with no amendment recorded.
The Act purports to be a validation act — implying it retrospectively validates prior appointments — yet the substantive provisions of the Act are entirely absent from the provided text, making it impossible to assess whether the validation mechanism is temporally coherent or creates retroactive impossibilities.
The notice states legislation is 'usually updated within 3 working days after a change' yet the file was last modified 29 June 2022 and the version is described as current 'to date'. This creates an unverifiable ongoing compliance claim baked into the static document itself.
The dual-purpose nature of the corridor (strategic infrastructure vs recreational use) would ordinarily fall under different ministerial portfolios — infrastructure/utilities versus parks/recreation — yet the legislation defers responsibility to a single Administrative Arrangement Order without any visible joint-administration or conflict-resolution provision in the supplied text.
1 more generated issue for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The 'Authorisation' section contains no authorisation information whatsoever — it merely states 'File last modified 29 June 2022', which is a file metadata statement, not a legal authorisation.
Rather than identifying the responsible Minister and Department, the section instructs the reader to consult an external document (the Administrative Arrangement Order), creating a situation where the instrument itself cannot be read as a standalone document and the responsible authority is indeterminate on its face.
2 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The file modification date (27 May 2019) precedes the stated currency commencement date (1 July 2019) by over a month. A file that was last changed before the version's start date cannot reliably reflect the law as it stood from that start date, since any changes taking effect on 1 July 2019 would necessarily have occurred after the file was last modified.
Subsection (4) triggers a proportional adjustment to the fee difference 'if stock have been driven on foot under the permit before the change in circumstances happens.' This creates an impossible computational scenario: the adjustment is based on 'days remaining after the change in circumstances,' but the inputs needed to calculate the revised permit fee (under subsection (5)) are counterfactual — they assume the correct particular was included from the start. Combining a counterfactual fee baseline with a prospective day-count adjustment produces a figure that has no coherent real-world anchor.
Section 12(2) applies the repealed regulation 'as if this regulation had not been made and the repealed regulation continued in force.' However, this regulation simultaneously repeals the earlier regulation (s.10) and commences on the commencement of the Land and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023, s.64. The legal fiction of treating the repealed regulation as still in force is internally coherent as a transitional device, but the regulation provides no mechanism to access the text of the repealed instrument once it is formally removed from the statute book, creating a practical impossibility of compliance for anyone relying solely on the current instrument.
4 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
The refund formula upon cancellation — 'the permit fee less the amount that would have been payable for the term of the permit before it was cancelled' — is internally incoherent. If a permit is cancelled, the 'term before cancellation' is the period already used, so deducting what 'would have been payable' for that period from the total fee is circular: the entire fee IS what is payable for the permit term. The formula may actually be intended to refund the pro-rata unused portion, but as drafted it could arithmetically result in a zero or negative refund in most cases.
Section 113(2) requires a local government to review the effectiveness of its plan 'at least 3 months before the start of each financial year'. A financial year starts on 1 July, meaning the review must occur before 1 April each year. However, a plan may not have been in operation for any meaningful period before the first such review deadline falls due, particularly if adopted late in a financial year. More significantly, there is no consequence specified if this mandatory annual review is not conducted, rendering it an unenforceable obligation.
10 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Section 36A(2) states the procedure in an inquiry 'is within the discretion of the Authority', yet s.36A(4) then mandates that the Authority 'shall' give affected workers an opportunity to present statements. The open-ended discretion granted in subsection (2) is immediately constrained by a mandatory obligation in subsection (4), making the grant of 'discretion' largely illusory and self-contradicting.
Section 36A(7) allows the Authority to give only some workers an opportunity to be heard in a mass inquiry. Section 36A(9) prohibits cancellation unless the specific worker was given an opportunity to present a statement under s.36A(4). Section 36A(10)(b) however allows suspension if the Authority used its s.36A(7) powers — meaning a worker's registration can be suspended without that individual ever being given a personal opportunity to be heard, but cannot be cancelled on the same basis. This creates an absurd hierarchy where suspension (potentially indefinite) requires less procedural fairness than cancellation.
10 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Section 4 allows any instrument (including a statutory instrument made under this Act) to displace the application of this Act by contrary intention. Since s.6 defines 'instrument' as 'any document', almost any document could theoretically displace this Act's operation, potentially including the very instruments this Act is designed to regulate.
Section 51(2) deems subordinate legislation that ceases to have effect as having 'never been made', yet s.51(3) simultaneously preserves the legal effect of 'anything done or suffered under the legislation'. This is internally contradictory: if the legislation never existed, the legal basis for actions taken under it also never existed, making the saving provision logically incoherent.
13 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Section 9B(1) absolutely prohibits approved online platform providers from retaining any copy of a statutory declaration. Section 9B(3)(b) then requires those same providers to report annually on their compliance with subsection (1). To report meaningfully on compliance — including detecting and reporting breaches — the provider would logically need records of declarations processed, creating tension between the prohibition and the reporting obligation.
Providers are prohibited from retaining any copy of a statutory declaration (s9B(1)) but must report the number of declarations made using the platform each financial year (s9B(3)(a)). To accurately report this number, providers must maintain at minimum a running count or log — yet the Act provides no explicit carve-out from s9B(1) permitting retention of even aggregate statistical records.
8 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
An entity can simultaneously be excluded from being a statutory body under s.6(2) yet declared to be one under s.5(2)(f) or s.5(3), but s.6(3) only partially resolves this
Impossibly sequenced preconditions: a body must decide to enter an arrangement before seeking Treasurer approval, yet must record the decision in writing before exercising the power, creating a temporal paradox
13 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.
Extensive and systematic duplication of headings throughout the document (e.g., 'Statutory Appointments (Validation) Act 2016' appears four times as a heading; 'Status Information' appears four times; 'Currency of version' appears four times; 'Authorisation' appears four times) with no operative or substantive legislative content whatsoever.
The currency statement claims the version is current 'to date (accessed 1 April 2026 at 23:10)' — a date nearly a decade after the Act's commencement — yet no amendments are reflected and the file modification date is 2017, creating an internal temporal contradiction between claimed currency and evidenced maintenance.
2 more generated issues for this Act are cached, but not expanded on the catalogue page.