Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

In particular, I wish to raise some concerns about the future of Australia’s premier law reform body. We had Senate estimates last week, and it highlighted, in my view, serious concerns for the commission’s future. It is clear that funding for what should be Australia’s premier law reform agency has been cut, it has been scalped and skinned, and as an agency it is now grossly diminished. What concerns me is that the law reform’s longstanding record of successful law reform is now at risk, and this flies in the face of statements made by Prime Minister Gillard since she was appointed prime minister in the 42nd Parliament. On the day of her appointment, she said that her government would:

… be held to higher standards of transparency and reform, and it's in that spirit that I approach the task of forming a government.

The commission was established in 1975 with the Hon. Justice Michael Kirby as its president, and has had other distinguished chairs, such as Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Justice Xavier Connor, Professor David Weisbrot, Justice Murray Wilcox and Alan Rose. All of these presidents had the benefit of being able to discuss critical law reform with their fellow full-time commissioners and to develop quality ideas for good law to work for all Australians. Unfortunately the current president could hold her meetings with her other commissioners in a telephone box because she is the only full-time commissioner—the president. Is this the template for other agencies in the future, whether it be the ACCC, the ACC, AHRC, all of which currently have more than one full-time member.

It was revealed during budget estimates last week that the commission had lost its funding for its education function, including its longstanding journal Reform. It is a blow to the community legal education on law reform, and one which should concern all law schools, legal practitioners and the community at large on whose support the legal system relies. There is considerable discussion now among the legal fraternity and members of academia regarding this particular matter. It is a sad state of affairs for the transparency and reform in this nation. I understand that turnover of the organisation is in the vicinity of 100 per cent. Of course in any normal business or organisation, the turnover is 25 per cent or less. What is the government planning to do with the future functions of the Law Reform Commission? I asked the government: will it be merged with other agencies or other entities, whether it be the Human Rights Commission or other entities? I would like the government to make a clear and unequivocal statement about the future of the commission.

We have seen that the $900,000 surplus has been eaten into this year. Will that surplus go back into consolidated revenue, or will it remain at the discretion of the commission to use into the future? These are questions that need to be answered, and I ask the minister responsible, Minister McClelland, and if necessary the Prime Minister to answer these questions. The future of law reform is in the balance. I notice that in the Financial Review on Friday, 22 October, James Eyers wrote a very thoughtful piece—‘Reform commission hamstrung by cuts’—and he quotes Attorney-General Robert McClelland when he said that ‘the government is confident that the commission’s funding is sufficient to enable it to carry out its functions’. That is not very confidence-building from my point of view, and I think from the point of view of other members of the community—particularly the legal community.

So I ask those questions, and the future of administrative law in this country is in question. We have had questions previously regarding the Administrative Review Council. I asked questions in estimates last week, and in previous estimates, about its future. So we have a number of questions that need to be answered by the government, and I ask that the Senate take note of that report and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.