Senator COONEY (5:03 PM) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I know it has now become acceptable to sit in the chamber without a coat, but it is not on that basis that I am not wearing one.

Senator Bolkus —What about your wig and gown?

Senator COONEY —My wig and gown have been left off too. Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank the Senate for the courtesy of ensuring that I can continue my remarks on the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1998 .

I want to say some things about the separation of the Australian Government Solicitor, which will be in a new situation to that which it previously occupied. We used talk about the Australian Government Solicitor as being part of the Attorney-General's Department. It is now the intention of the government to set this body apart, to some extent at least, to put it on a professional basis and to make it comparable to a private firm of solicitors.

This is another example of where this government declares a principle but takes that principle only a certain way. If the Australian Government Solicitor is going to be put on the same basis as a private firm, does that mean that the people within the Australian Government Solicitor will be paid on the same basis as members of a private firm? Will the good people now sitting in the advisers' box be rewarded with pay commensurate with a senior partner in a big firm? Will they be given a car and trips to conventions overseas? In other words, will they be treated on the basis that the second reading speech sets out—that the Australian Government Solicitor is now going to be treated as a firm? The probable answer to that is no, they will not be. So we will be asking the Australian Government Solicitor to do all the work expected of people in the private firms but to be rewarded on a different basis. They will be expected to work long hours—they already do work long hours—but they will be rewarded differently.

We cannot go on changing the way government services are delivered by setting out in legislation and in second reading speeches that a particular section of the government will now be set up like a firm in the private sector and then use that proposition to get more work from those people, get those people to work harder, but not reward them as they would be rewarded were they in the private sector. The other interesting thing is that the private sector is taking people from the Australian Government Solicitor and the Attorney-General's office more and more and rewarding them very generously, as they should be rewarded. Some of the best legal minds in the private sector originally came from the Australian Government Solicitor. Fortunately, there are still great minds in that department, but it must tax the patience of the people in the department to be treated the way they have been.

This legislation, in separating out the Australian Government Solicitor from the department and making it, as it were, a private firm, is saying that the principles that operate in the private firms ought to operate in the Australian Government Solicitor. There are some very fine solicitors in private firms. In fact I am tempted to name some of them, but that would be advertising on a broadcast day.

Over the years I have known people from the Australian Government Solicitor who are dedicated to giving public service. In other words, there are people who go through law school and go into the Public Service who want to do just that—to give public service. They are interested in the sort of work they do, whether it be the development of policy in the criminal area or doing constitutional cases or doing work on the international stage or developing principles set out in conventions such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child or those conventions dealing with political freedoms and so on. I think that is an approach that ought to be encouraged. In private firms there are people who want to serve their clients as best they can and with all the ability they have. They also want to make a profit from the fees that they raise, as they are entitled to.

Both those approaches—the approach taken by those who go into the Public Service, into the Attorney-General's Department, and the approach taken by those who go into private firms—are very honourable and are to be commended. But there is an important difference and one which should be preserved. The two groups of lawyers, if you like, are after two different objectives. The group in the department is interested in serving the public in a wide sense, as I said, in developing public policy and in seeing that the law, which is the underpinning of our society, is as good as it can be, and in seeing that the overarching rule of law under which we live is preserved and kept in all its integrity. That is a noble ambition. It is one that this bill, because of the principles behind it, attacks and puts at risk. I think that is a great shame.

The Attorney-General's legal directions should be subject to disallowance by this Senate. They should be subject to supervision by this Senate and, as the law now stands, they are not. That could easily be cured, and it should be. That is the first proposition I make.

Secondly, and more importantly, this bill—it is really a bill that deals with structures, with the way departments are set up—does rest on very important principles that we should not let go through without some opposition. It is symbolic, I think, of a lot of the problems that occur in the Public Service now where the whole flavour, the whole philosophy, the whole culture of the Public Service is under attack. The great traditions that the Public Service has of giving generous service to the public, of looking to the good of the community, are put at too great a risk.