Senator STOTT DESPOJA (3:48 PM) —I rise to speak on the amendment moved by the opposition. As Senator Bolkus has indicated, the Democrats will not be supporting the amendment in its current form. Clause 18C makes provision for the Prime Minister or cabinet to authorise a non-portfolio minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a minister to act for or on behalf of the portfolio holder. Although the Democrats have some reservations about the way this amendment operates in that it may not achieve its intended purpose, we are certainly quite glad that it is being proposed as a matter of discussion and debate.

The Acts Interpretation Act was assented to on 12 July 1901 as the second act in the new Australian Federation. Since then, the sections covered by the government's bill have been amended a number of times to deal with changes in the way government operates. The idea supporting interpretation legislation has been a significant reduction in the amount of legislation because commonly used words and phrases can be relied upon. This was evident from a number of submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report entitled Clearer Commonwealth law in September 1993. That report recommended the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel publicly review and rewrite the Acts Interpretation Act.

As I have set out before, the Democrats are keen to see this process advanced and encourage the government to rewrite this important act to reflect modern day times and needs and responsibilities. However, we also want to see that review and rewrite go further than just the interpretation measures. We want to see the Acts Interpretation Act deal with the institution of government and the way the executive organises itself and distributes the powers granted to government by our laws. We acknowledge the importance of the Acts Interpretation Act, and we want to ensure its continuing relevance and to promote legislative clarity so that those relying on legislation can know and understand what our parliament does and how laws are to take effect. More importantly, we want to make sure those challenging governments or who are subjected to the action of a government can ensure our laws are properly and appropriately administered.

The constitution makes provision for ministers and the federal Executive Council, but it does not distinguish between senior ministers, junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The Labor amendment, in many ways, is a welcome recognition of the central place of cabinet in the Australian government as well as these additional roles which reflect the changing way that government is administered. This recognition is now probably as important as ever before. This is because the changes to mega departments by the previous government, as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, have been carried on by this government. It is also important to realise the increasing scope of government in Australia.

The constitution makes provision for only seven ministers. At the time the Acts Interpretation Act was assented there were 10 ministers. In 1998 there are some 30 ministers. Perhaps more interesting is the rise of parliamentary secretaries. They first appeared in the Lyons ministry in 1938, with parliamentary secretaries for defence and Treasury. Since then, they have existed in a number of government departments. In 1980 they became statutory office holders, and from 1990 they have become members of the Executive Council.

The Democrats are keen to see a reflection of these changes in the Acts Interpretation Act. We welcome the Labor Party's recognition of these issues and their attempts to put them into effect. Unfortunately, we have some concerns about how these amendments have proposed to achieve their goal. We are of the view that they do not cover satisfactorily the complex issues. However, I understand we have a common interest in reviewing the Acts Interpretation Act to deal with this and related issues. I look forward to hearing the result of this reform process.

The Democrats will not be supporting the amendment in its present form with an understanding from the government that the Acts Interpretation Act is under review and that that review will be completed soon, we hope. We would expect to see the outcome of this review, as I stated in my speech in the second reading debate, in legislation before the parliament, addressing, in particular, the entire issue of the distribution of powers between the Executive Council and others. The Labor Party have flagged their support for this proposition, and I look forward to the government making the same commitment.