Mr McCLELLAND (4:12 AM) —The opposition are opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000, but we acknowledge that the amendments improve the government's proposition. They are largely technical in nature, although some of them do address concerns which were expressed during the consideration of the bill by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. That committee is an important one because it monitors and assesses bills and provides advice to the Senate as to their compliance with some fundamental human rights principles. In that context, the committee recommended that the wide range of powers in the bill which were bestowed upon the president to delegate his or her powers and functions should be narrowed and that, in particular, the president should not be able to delegate his or her powers to consultants. We say that that recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is important, and the government has acknowledged that in accepting that recommendation and preparing appropriate amendments.

The amendments also, as we understand it, provide minor clarifications in respect of tribunal practice and procedure directions. There are also procedural amendments relating to the circumstances in which the tribunal can permit the inspection of documents. There are amendments which deal with pension entitlements of some existing tribunal members. We say that, in the creation of a new tribunal, those transitional arrangements for the entitlements of existing members are appropriate—again, in the context that we are opposing the bill as a whole. However, our concern is that the amendments do not address the underlying structural flaws of the bill.

While it is not appropriate at this point that I respond to the Attorney-General's response to the second reading debate, I should indicate that our fundamental concern is that the government's approach in this legislation is to pick the worst aspects of some specialist tribunals—in particular, the circumstances in which the selection of tribunal members is determined or vetted by the minister, whose departmental decisions will be scrutinised by the particular division of the tribunal. That is inappropriate because it interferes with the perception of independence. The funding issues are also of great significance, together with the ability to provide procedural directions. The government amendments disappointingly do not address those fundamental structural flaws and that being the case, regrettably, the opposition remain in opposition to the bill as a whole.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.