Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Law Officers Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is one of the most uncontroversial bills the House will ever deal with. It is my duty, on behalf of the shadow Attorney-General, to speak on this bill, which 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. It will be unsurprising to the House to find that this bill is being dealt with with some lack of controversy—and, in fact, I am surprised that it is not being dealt with in the Main Committee. Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that the opposition is happy to support the bill.

Historically, long service leave for the Solicitor-General was expressly provided for in the Law Officers Act and, to avoid conflict, the office is excluded from the operation of the long service leave act. Amendments to the Law Officers Act in 1998 altered the Solicitor-General’s terms and conditions of service to bring them into line with those of senior members of the Australian Public Service but did not make consequential amendments to the long service leave act. This bill seeks to clarify that holders of the office of the Solicitor-General appointed after 31 December 1997 are entitled to long service leave. The opposition supports the bill.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Mr Deputy Speaker’ is the correct term. I thank you for the elevation though.

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

Okay. I just wanted to elevate you to that very high office.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very kind of you.

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

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Whether it be the entitlements of the Solicitor-General or the support of legal aid in Australia, the Howard government left behind a disgraceful legacy of cutting corners, as the member for Sturt well understands and appreciates. The Rudd government has acted quickly to reverse the trend.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Sturt will contain himself, within or without the chamber.

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

In this bill we have addressed what could charitably be described as an oversight from the previous government. In the budget, the Attorney-General ensured that legal aid funding was not subject to budget cuts—unlike the Howard government, which slashed legal aid in its first budget. Indeed, the Rudd government has already made a substantial investment in legal aid.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. Notwithstanding that this bill is to do with entitlements for one person and one person only, clearly moving on to legal aid and things associated with that has little to do with ensuring that Mr Bennett gets his long service leave.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden. I know the enthusiastic approach of the member for Lowe in relation to matters relating to the law, but I would ask him to draw his contribution to the particular provisions of the bill.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that what I was saying was entirely relevant and I had made some very pertinent points.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But your points, Member for Lowe, really also have to be relevant to the bill.

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

On that note I will conclude by saying: it has only taken months, but the Rudd government has already made substantial progress in undoing much of the damage of the past 11½ years.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank the member for Lowe and also the member for Sturt for their contributions to the debate on the Law Officers Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The member for Sturt made a succinct but relevant submission; the member for Lowe clearly undertook extensive research if not making a slightly more controversial speech. Nonetheless, both were excellent contributions. In summary, the purpose of the bill is to provide solicitors-general—that is plural: the current and also future solicitors-general—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I call the chair’s attention to the state of the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call to the attention of the honourable member for Sturt that the correct means under standing orders of addressing the occupant of the chair is ‘Mr Deputy Speaker’ and not ‘Mr Acting Deputy Speaker’.

(Quorum formed)

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summary, the purpose of the bill is to provide solicitors-general with an entitlement to long service leave. The amendments will remedy amendments of the Law Officers Act 1964 made in 1998 that had not taken into account the Solicitor-General’s previous long service leave entitlement. It was never intended, nor is it now, that the holder of office of Solicitor-General should not have access to long service leave.

Until 31 December 1997, the Law Officers Act provided that the salary and leave entitlements for the person holding the office of Solicitor-General were the same as for a judge of the Federal Court. By progressing with this bill, the government is giving effect to the 1998 amendments of the Law Officers Act which varied the terms and conditions of service for those holding the office of Solicitor-General after 31 December 1997. The purpose then was to make the terms and conditions of the Solicitor-General similar to those of senior members of the Australian Public Service and sever the previous connection to terms and conditions applying to federal judges.

It became clear, however, in 2003 that the 1998 amendments of the Solicitor-General’s employment conditions had not taken account of the previous entitlement to long service leave. The amendment of section 16A of the Law Officers Act had removed the entitlement to a judge’s pension and the payment in lieu of long service leave, leaving the Solicitor-General with no entitlement to long service leave. The present bill amends the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 and the Law Officers Act 1964 to ensure that Solicitors-General have a long service leave entitlement.

In conclusion, may I congratulate and express the parliament’s appreciation to the current Solicitor-General, David Bennett, for the outstanding service he has given to the Commonwealth of Australia. His record of success in the High Court is absolutely outstanding and we are all grateful for the contribution he has made to the office.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.