SENATE
2e7N9wg
2e7N9wg
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
56 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016<br />
currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and around 200 people in Australia being<br />
investigated for providing support to individuals or groups in the Syria-Iraq conflict, including through funding<br />
and facilitation or for seeking to travel to the conflict zone.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.<br />
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:06): What is the government doing to prevent such acts occurring and to<br />
keep Australia safe?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:06): Senator Duniam, as you know, the government is committed to doing<br />
everything it can to tackle the threat posed by terrorism and those who support it. Since August 2014, the<br />
government has invested an additional $1.3 billion to support Australia's efforts in combating terrorism and has<br />
engaged in a program of significant counterterrorism law reform designed to give our law enforcement and<br />
security agencies the tools they need to disrupt and combat terrorism.<br />
The Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 and the counterterrorism legislation<br />
amendment bill, both of which I introduced during this sitting of the parliament, continue the government's<br />
significant record on enacting a range of effective counterterrorism laws that will strike the right balance between<br />
the safety of our communities and the individual freedoms so integral to our society.<br />
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS<br />
The PRESIDENT (14:07): I indicate to honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Deputy Speaker<br />
of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji, the Hon. Ruveni Nadalo. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm<br />
welcome to Australia and particularly the Senate.<br />
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:08): My question<br />
is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the submissions of the former Solicitor-General Gavan<br />
Griffith QC to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Does the Attorney-General agree with<br />
Mr Griffith QC that an independent Solicitor-General protects against the risks of the provision's, in his words,<br />
'dodgy advice'?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:08): I do not agree with everything Dr Griffith has said in the words attributed<br />
to him in this morning's paper, Senator Farrell.<br />
Senator Farrell: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There is one question I am asking in respect of this<br />
matter, and that is: does Senator Brandis agree with the dodgy advice that is referred to—<br />
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Attorney-General has just barely started his answer. He is<br />
five seconds into his answer, so I think we can give the Attorney-General a bit more time.<br />
Senator BRANDIS: I read what Dr Griffith had to say and I do not agree with all of it. I am not alone in<br />
disagreeing with Dr Griffith, by the way, because another former law officer of the Crown has expressed a<br />
different view. He recently said:<br />
… that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government, higher than advice from the Australian<br />
Government Solicitor or from the private bar. Nevertheless, he would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained<br />
that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues:<br />
Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very<br />
senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again.<br />
Do you know which senior law officer recently expressed that opinion? It was Mr Mark Dreyfus. I do not agree<br />
with Dr Griffith, but neither, apparently, does Mr Mark Dreyfus in his contribution to Professor Gabrielle<br />
Appleby's book The role of the Solicitor-General. I would have thought that Mr Dreyfus's words, which—<br />
Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order.<br />
Government senators interjecting—<br />
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I need to hear the point of order.<br />
Senator Wong: I know the Attorney is very obsessed with Mr Dreyfus. I know that. We all know that. But I<br />
would suggest—<br />
The PRESIDENT: What is the point of order, Senator Wong?<br />
CHAMBER