The question then is whether the provisions of s. 48 (1) (a) of the Acts Interpretation Act, as affected by those of s. 5 (3) of the Rules Publication Act, were at the relevant time merely directory. If so, it was not necessary, in order to render a regulation operative, that those provisions should have been obeyed or fulfilled exactly; it was sufficient if they were obeyed or fulfilled substantially: see Dignan v. Australian Steamships Pty. Ltd. [1] , citing Woodward v. Sarsons [2] ; and see also Scurr v. Brisbane City Council [3] . This question has been set at rest for the future by sub-sections (3A), (3B) and (3C) of s. 5 of the Statutory Rules Publication Act, which were inserted in that Act by the Statutory Rules Publication Amendment Act 1978. There is no general rule as to whether enactments should be considered as obligatory or directory; the question is one of construction, the aim being to discover "the real intention of the legislature": Dignan v. Australian Steamships Pty. Ltd. [4] . The question is whether the Parliament intended that regulations of the kind described in s. 48 (2) could never take effect unless there had been a strict compliance with s. 48 (1) (a) understood in the light of s. 5 (3), or whether a substantial compliance with the provisions of those sections was intended to be enough. The regulations, once they took effect, would have the force of law and might affect many members of the public. It could hardly have been thought desirable that the question whether regulations had taken effect should depend on whether there had been a delay - perhaps a very slight delay - in delivering the copies of the regulations to the place named in the notice in the Gazette . If strict compliance with the statutory provisions were essential, the consequence would be that if copies of the regulations were delivered one day late, the notice in the Gazette would be insufficient and a fresh notification would be required before the regulations could take effect. However, it might never become known to anyone in a position of authority, or it might only be discovered after a long period, that the delay in delivery had occurred, so that there might be no opportunity promptly to correct the irregularity. Grave inconvenience might result. The object of the statutory provisions was to bring the existence of the regulations to the notice of the public, and to inform interested persons where copies of the regulations could be obtained. This object would be substantially achieved if copies were available at the named place, even though they were not available on the very day when the Gazette was published. In my opinion it was not intended that a regulation should not take effect unless there were a notification which literally satisfied s. 5 (3) of the Rules Publication Act. I consider that if the notice stated the place where copies of the regulations could be purchased, and copies could in fact be purchased at that place, although not until some time after the Gazette was published, there will have been a substantial compliance, and the regulations will have taken effect, at least from the date when the copies became available for purchase at that place.