Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Justice) (10:48 AM) —It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Madam Temporary Chairman. We are debating opposition amendment No. 2 which is seeking to make certificates issued by the Attorney scrutinisable by parliament. Those certificates say whether something is a legislative instrument or not. If it is, then it would have to go through these processes that this whole bill is about—legislative instruments legislation. Senator Bolkus, the shadow Attorney-General, makes a contribution and says, `The Attorney is claiming that this decision on his part is a judicial process.' I have not heard the Attorney say that.

Senator Bolkus —I have read the report.

Senator VANSTONE —They are certainly not my instructions from the Attorney whatsoever. I do not say you are being deliberately misleading, Senator Bolkus, but they are not my instructions at all.

Senator Bolkus —That is not good enough.

Senator VANSTONE —It may not be good enough, Senator Bolkus, for you, but I have not finished yet. I am just indicating to you first up that those are not my instructions. Secondly, I am indicating that the bill, since the report that you were talking about, has now changed. The bill, in its original form, did not allow for administrative decisions judicial review. So you would have a situation that if the Attorney were to say, `No, I am not going to have parliament review my decision' and you could not have an administrative review, then you would have a non-reviewable decision. But, as you well know, Senator Bolkus, the bill has been changed from its original form and a decision by the Attorney would now provide for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and that review would be by the Federal Court—quite the opposite from the impression one might get if one was an unsuspecting person reading the Hansard late at night and read Senator Bolkus's speech.

There are a couple of things you would not realise. You would not realise that this bill is not the original bill from years ago. This bill is different. It does allow for administrative decisions judicial review by the Federal Court of a decision taken by the Attorney. You would not appreciate that from what Senator Bolkus says.

Senator Bolkus —That is also not true. Weren't you listening? I put that on the record. What were you doing, Amanda?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley) —Minister, you have the call.

Senator VANSTONE —Thank you for indicating I have the call, Madam Temporary Chairman. I had thought I had but I was a little bit confused with Senator Bolkus interjecting all the time and trying to hold things up. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which got some mention in Senator Bolkus's speech, has taken up the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of section 8 certificates on a number of occasions. The Attorney has made it clear to the chair of that committee that he does not accept the view that parliament should be reviewing the Attorney's decisions in this respect and that the AD(JR) Act review by the Federal Court is satisfactory. That is the Attorney's position and the government's position.