Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I respond to the comments made by the minister who dismissed my previous contribution in relation to the first amendment to this bill, the Australian Education Bill 2012, that the government has moved and who, in a hand-waving way, described it as 'confusing' and had nothing more to say. The point that I am making is that the minister has included, within both the bill and now the amendments, many pages of worthy aspirations. It would seem from the amendments that the government is moving that it was not satisfied with the first several pages of worthy aspirations and wanted to add some more.

In my view, this is a meaningless exercise with no legal validity. The inclusion of these many pages of statements will not affect one iota the way that a court interprets the substantive provisions of the legislation. As I read the bill I see that is also the government's view, because proposed section 10 of the bill—prior to the amendments being moved—states:

This Act does not create rights or duties that are legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.

I have two specific questions for the minister, because I have not been able to work them out myself in the time available. Will proposed section 10 still stand after the amendments are moved, assuming they are accepted? Will proposed section 10 stand in relation to every provision of the bill or, as I presume is more likely, in relation to the preamble and some other clauses? I would like an answer to those questions. More broadly, the question I am asking the minister to address, which to date he has simply dismissed by describing my contribution as 'confusing', is: what is the substantive point of the many pages of wafty and lofty statements of aspiration contained in the original bill which are expanded upon, in ways I have already commented on, in the amendments? Also, what is the work which is done by the further amendments to these statements of high-minded and desirable aspirations?

To put the question another way, in language that lawyers often use, what work do these words do? If you put language into a contract, if you put language into a bill, you do so because it is intended to have a legal effect. The words are intended to do some work. I do not know whether the minister practised as a lawyer but I know that he has a law degree, so I assume he will understand the point I am making. What is the work which these words do? Could the minister explain it to the House and could he explain further the effect of the amendments? If the government has moved amendments it presumably thinks they are intended to have a purpose. Therefore, in a consideration in detail stage the minister ought to be able to explain to the House what that purpose is. He ought to be able to explain to the House why he considers it is appropriate that the parliament should pass into law a bill which contains these words.

There are many serious concerns we on this side of the House have about the bill and the 70-plus pages of amendments which are before the House. We have very serious questions about process; we have very serious questions about the government's bona fides; we have very serious questions about whether this bill does what the government claims it does. Our concerns are only heightened by the appalling process in which the government has dropped 70 pages of amendments on us with only a few hours to analyse them. I also have—as I am sure my colleagues have—other serious questions, and one of my serious questions is: what is the purpose of this high-minded statement of aspirations when proposed section 10 of the original bill says this act does not create legally enforceable obligations? Could the minister please explain how that clause will now apply in relation to the preamble and other parts of the bill? Could the minister please explain the purpose of these high-minded provisions and how precisely the government expects the court to interpret them?

See this speech in context