John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

It should not be surprising for my friend and colleague the member for Sturt and shadow minister that the Law Officers Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is being dealt with on the big stage. I need to record that it amends the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 and the Law Officers Act 1964 to provide holders of the office of the Solicitor-General with an entitlement to long service leave. The provision of long service leave entitlements to holders of the office of the Solicitor-General is entirely appropriate. This is particularly so when one considers the history of the work carried out by the Solicitor-General as well as the history of the Law Officers Act itself.

The role of the Solicitor-General was put to this House most eloquently in 1964 by the then member for Werriwa, Gough Whitlam—and I note the Attorney-General is nodding. When speaking in support of the Law Officers Bill, Mr Whitlam said:

The new position will be the most significant and challenging legal post in Australia. The Solicitor-General to be appointed under this Act will have the opportunity of appearing in nearly all the constitutional cases and most of the administrative cases which will determine the rights of citizens and governments in this country. He will contribute more than any lawyer of his time to the making of the laws of the country.

Mr Whitlam’s comments about the importance of the Solicitor-General still ring true tonight. The importance of the Solicitor-General, and the need to provide appropriate remuneration and entitlements to such an esteemed office, was for many years reflected in the Law Officers Act.

Until 31 December 1997 the salary and leave entitlements for a person holding the office of Solicitor-General were the same as those for a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Section 16A of the old Law Officers Act provided a payment to the Solicitor-General on retirement in lieu of long service leave. The Law Officers Act was amended in 1998 to vary the terms and conditions of service for the office of the Solicitor-General. The amendments were in line with the former government’s wish to break the nexus between the remuneration and entitlements of the Solicitor-General and those provided to a judge. A consequence of the 1998 amendments was that the Solicitor-General’s former entitlement to a payment in lieu of long service leave would no longer apply to that office.

I cannot vouch for the former Attorney-General who implemented these changes, so I can only hope that the withdrawal of long service leave entitlements was an unintended consequence of the 1998 amendments. That said, the former Attorney-General and the former Howard government had plenty of time to correct this anomaly. As far back as 1997 the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest No. 124 stated:

Whilst it is proposed that holders of the office after 31 December 1997 will receive superannuation and leave entitlements similar to those applying to senior members of the Australian Public Service, the Bill does not address these proposals in detail.

As we now know, 10 years later, the issue of leave entitlements was never addressed in detail by the previous government. We can only shake our heads and ask why such an obvious oversight was left without correction for so long. It is fair to ask why the long service leave entitlements of the present Solicitor-General, whose second term expires in a matter of months, were put at risk because of the former government’s tardiness.

The bill will insert new section 7A in the Law Officers Act to explicitly make clear that the act operates subject to the long service leave act. In turn, sections 10(3) and 10(4) of the long service leave act will be amended to enable solicitors-general to access long service leave entitlements under that act. These technical amendments are not so complex that they would have taken this long—10 years—to draft. The amendments could have been drafted in a matter of hours, not years. As has been the case in many other fields, it has been left to the new Rudd government to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the provision of working entitlements. Whether it be the working entitlements of hardworking families or the working entitlements of the Solicitor-General, it seems as though the Howard government has always had an aversion to the provision of fair working entitlements.

Nonetheless, the intention tonight is clear: to ensure that the long service leave entitlements of the office of the Solicitor-General are restored. This bill does not introduce changes to the nature of the office of the Solicitor-General but merely to the terms and conditions attaching to it. These terms and conditions must be concomitant with the importance attached to the office. For that reason, long service leave entitlements must form part of any package of incentives used to attract the best quality applicants for the job.

It is true that people will have countless motivations to seek the position of Solicitor-General. These may range from the money and entitlements on offer to more altruistic purposes. Irrespective of the motivations of prospective solicitors-general, the government should do what it can to give more security to those willing to give up greater incomes in private practice. In order to recruit a new Solicitor-General of the necessary calibre, a person must be remunerated at a level commensurate with the skills and experiences necessary for the position. It is not enough to rely exclusively on the public-spirited attitude of community service found amongst many potential applicants. Given the significance of the office, and the importance to the government of receiving quality independent advice, the field of applicants should always be widened, not narrowed.

Our amendments to the Law Officers Act, and the restoration of long service leave entitlements, are not being done with a nod to the bean counters. This can be contrasted with the approach of the Howard government, where penny pinching could be seen as an implicit consideration. During debate on the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997, the former Attorney-General concluded his second reading by stating:

... the amendments will also realise some savings to the taxpayer as a result of a reduction in benefits paid from the consolidated revenue fund.

It had always been a theme of the previous government to focus on doing things on the cheap, relegating effectiveness to a secondary consideration. Justice, and the administration of justice, cannot be done on the cheap. Enforcing rights and duties is a monumental task and corners should not be cut.

See this speech in context