5 ms·

I'm a marriage celebrant here in Australia and a couple must, by law, give "one month" notice before they wish to be married. This is surprisingly complicated.

I'm a marriage celebrant here in Australia and a couple must, by law, give "one month" notice before they wish to be married. This is surprisingly complicated. A good percentage of the training and the accreditation were related to the calculation of this month. The Attorney General's Department sent out a fact-sheet earlier this year, clarifying "one month" and giving a bunch of examples. A few months later they updated the fact sheet: I think even they had messed it up first time round. I'm pretty sure there's an Act which specifically defines this, and I think it goes back many decades. Alas, I can't be bothered finding it now because I have to go to the pub. ;-) Edit: here we go. The marvellously named "Acts Interpretation Act" of 1901 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00691 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00691). 2G Months (1) In any Act, month means a period: (a) starting at the start of any day of one of the calendar months; and (b) ending: (i) immediately before the start of the corresponding day of the next calendar month; or (ii) if there is no such day—at the end of the next calendar month. Example 1: A month starting on 15 December in a year ends immediately before 15 January in the next year. Example 2: A month starting on 31 August in a year ends at the end of September in that year (because September is the calendar month coming after August and does not have 31 days).

lathiat 8y ago
Fascinating that they don't use the same "immediately before" language under (ii) - that seems to provide clarity that it's at the end of the day not the start of the day but no such clarify exists for (ii) though could probably be assumed.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  (ii) explicitly states at the end of the month, which unambiguously specifies that the period ends when the month does. (i) uses “immediately before” language because it is referencing the numerically corresponding day of the next calendar month after the start day. In both cases they seem to be taking the simplest unambiguous description.
jacquesm 8y ago
A typical case of making something more complex than needed. They could have simply used a window of time specified as no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days. That would have solved the problem in an elegant and robust way.
- pricechild 8y ago
  What about in the case of daylight savings? Do you need to add an extra hour?
  - taejo 8y ago
    > immediately before the start of the corresponding day A month ends at the end of a day, regardless of the length of that day or any other day during the month.
    - pricechild 8y ago
      The point is... you're now having to make the definition more complex. The OP's request was to make it simpler. With time, you often can't do that without edge cases.
  - bonzini 8y ago
    You can set the ending time at 19:00 or 24:00 or whenever you want, which you have to do even if you base the period on months rather than days. Daylight savings time switches happen in the middle of the night, IIRC at 2am or 3am.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Or simpler, just get rid of whatever moralising has lead to that law and just accept that some people want to get married now.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.
adynatos 8y ago
tell me there's an "acts interpretation act" interpretation. or even "acts interpretation act" interpretation act.
thomasfoster96 8y ago
IANAL, but given this case is in an ACT court the ACT’s Legislation Act 2001 [0] (perhaps better named than ‘Acts Interpretation Act 1901’) is probably the more relevant piece of legislation in this case, and defines a ‘month’ like this: "month" means a period beginning at the start of any day of one of the calendar months and ending— (a) immediately before the start of the corresponding day of the next calendar month; or (b) if there is no such corresponding day—at the end of the next calendar month. Examples 1 The period beginning at the start of 8 May 2014 and ending at midnight on 7 June 2014 is a month. 2 The period beginning at the start of 30 January 2014 and ending at midnight on 28 February 2014 is a month. The month ends on the last day of February because in that year, February does not have a day corresponding to 29 January (because 2014 is not a leap year). If the period began at the start of 30 January 2016 (ie a leap year), the month would end at midnight on 29 February 2016. Note: An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132). Example 2 is extremely relevant. [0] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/la2001133/notes.html#dictionary http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/conso...
- chris_wot 8y ago
  I really wish there was an ACT Acts Interpretation Act.
- koliber 8y ago
  I see no mention of timezones. I can see complications arising from that, given Australia spans a few timezones. Time is complicated when it comes to implementing strict rules. There will always be situations that can be interpreted in more than one way. This is why laws need not only the letter (what) but also the spirit (the why). When the letter of the law proves ambiguous, the spirit can be used to come up with a resolution.
  - thomasfoster96 8y ago
    What I’ve quoted is just the definition of a ‘month’ in legislation in the ACT. Time zones are dealt with in other parts of the Act and other legislation. But yes, time is complicated, especially when multiple jurisdictions are involved.
danieltillett 8y ago
I thought it was a month and a day notice you had to give.

lathiat 8y ago

Fascinating that they don't use the same "immediately before" language under (ii) - that seems to provide clarity that it's at the end of the day not the start of the day but no such clarify exists for (ii) though could probably be assumed.

dragonwriter 8y ago
(ii) explicitly states at the end of the month, which unambiguously specifies that the period ends when the month does. (i) uses “immediately before” language because it is referencing the numerically corresponding day of the next calendar month after the start day. In both cases they seem to be taking the simplest unambiguous description.

jacquesm 8y ago

A typical case of making something more complex than needed. They could have simply used a window of time specified as no less than 30 days and no more than 45 days. That would have solved the problem in an elegant and robust way.

pricechild 8y ago
What about in the case of daylight savings? Do you need to add an extra hour?
- taejo 8y ago
  > immediately before the start of the corresponding day A month ends at the end of a day, regardless of the length of that day or any other day during the month.
  - pricechild 8y ago
    The point is... you're now having to make the definition more complex. The OP's request was to make it simpler. With time, you often can't do that without edge cases.
- bonzini 8y ago
  You can set the ending time at 19:00 or 24:00 or whenever you want, which you have to do even if you base the period on months rather than days. Daylight savings time switches happen in the middle of the night, IIRC at 2am or 3am.
lostlogin 8y ago
Or simpler, just get rid of whatever moralising has lead to that law and just accept that some people want to get married now.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  The reason is not a moralizing one, it came into being when the registries were less than perfect to avoid bigamy. It probably could be abandoned in the present day without any loss of functionality but it definitely was not codified into law for moralizing reasons.

adynatos 8y ago

tell me there's an "acts interpretation act" interpretation. or even "acts interpretation act" interpretation act.

thomasfoster96 8y ago

IANAL, but given this case is in an ACT court the ACT’s Legislation Act 2001 [0] (perhaps better named than ‘Acts Interpretation Act 1901’) is probably the more relevant piece of legislation in this case, and defines a ‘month’ like this: "month" means a period beginning at the start of any day of one of the calendar months and ending— (a) immediately before the start of the corresponding day of the next calendar month; or (b) if there is no such corresponding day—at the end of the next calendar month. Examples 1 The period beginning at the start of 8 May 2014 and ending at midnight on 7 June 2014 is a month. 2 The period beginning at the start of 30 January 2014 and ending at midnight on 28 February 2014 is a month. The month ends on the last day of February because in that year, February does not have a day corresponding to 29 January (because 2014 is not a leap year). If the period began at the start of 30 January 2016 (ie a leap year), the month would end at midnight on 29 February 2016. Note: An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132). Example 2 is extremely relevant. [0] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/la2001133/notes.html#dictionary http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/conso...

chris_wot 8y ago
I really wish there was an ACT Acts Interpretation Act.
koliber 8y ago
I see no mention of timezones. I can see complications arising from that, given Australia spans a few timezones. Time is complicated when it comes to implementing strict rules. There will always be situations that can be interpreted in more than one way. This is why laws need not only the letter (what) but also the spirit (the why). When the letter of the law proves ambiguous, the spirit can be used to come up with a resolution.
- thomasfoster96 8y ago
  What I’ve quoted is just the definition of a ‘month’ in legislation in the ACT. Time zones are dealt with in other parts of the Act and other legislation. But yes, time is complicated, especially when multiple jurisdictions are involved.

danieltillett 8y ago

I thought it was a month and a day notice you had to give.