SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

56 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016 currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and around 200 people in Australia being investigated for providing support to individuals or groups in the Syria-Iraq conflict, including through funding and facilitation or for seeking to travel to the conflict zone. The PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question. Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (14:06): What is the government doing to prevent such acts occurring and to keep Australia safe? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:06): Senator Duniam, as you know, the government is committed to doing everything it can to tackle the threat posed by terrorism and those who support it. Since August 2014, the government has invested an additional $1.3 billion to support Australia's efforts in combating terrorism and has engaged in a program of significant counterterrorism law reform designed to give our law enforcement and security agencies the tools they need to disrupt and combat terrorism. The Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 and the counterterrorism legislation amendment bill, both of which I introduced during this sitting of the parliament, continue the government's significant record on enacting a range of effective counterterrorism laws that will strike the right balance between the safety of our communities and the individual freedoms so integral to our society. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS The PRESIDENT (14:07): I indicate to honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji, the Hon. Ruveni Nadalo. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and particularly the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Attorney-General Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:08): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the submissions of the former Solicitor-General Gavan Griffith QC to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Griffith QC that an independent Solicitor-General protects against the risks of the provision's, in his words, 'dodgy advice'? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): I do not agree with everything Dr Griffith has said in the words attributed to him in this morning's paper, Senator Farrell. Senator Farrell: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There is one question I am asking in respect of this matter, and that is: does Senator Brandis agree with the dodgy advice that is referred to— The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Attorney-General has just barely started his answer. He is five seconds into his answer, so I think we can give the Attorney-General a bit more time. Senator BRANDIS: I read what Dr Griffith had to say and I do not agree with all of it. I am not alone in disagreeing with Dr Griffith, by the way, because another former law officer of the Crown has expressed a different view. He recently said: … that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government, higher than advice from the Australian Government Solicitor or from the private bar. Nevertheless, he would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues: 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 senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again. Do you know which senior law officer recently expressed that opinion? It was Mr Mark Dreyfus. I do not agree with Dr Griffith, but neither, apparently, does Mr Mark Dreyfus in his contribution to Professor Gabrielle Appleby's book The role of the Solicitor-General. I would have thought that Mr Dreyfus's words, which— Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I need to hear the point of order. Senator Wong: I know the Attorney is very obsessed with Mr Dreyfus. I know that. We all know that. But I would suggest— The PRESIDENT: What is the point of order, Senator Wong? CHAMBER
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 57 Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance. We did not actually ask about Mr Dreyfus. I know Senator Brandis thinks about him a lot. We asked about Mr Griffith QC and his views. I have not intervened for a minute, but as yet he has not actually got to the point. The PRESIDENT: I believe the Attorney-General answered it up-front by saying he does not agree and that there are other people who disagree. So I think he did answer the question quite succinctly. Senator BRANDIS: Mr Dreyfus's views, which on this occasion accord with mine, must have been fresh in his mind since the book which quotes him was only published last month. This is why I find it very difficult to understand how Mr Dreyfus could, without hypocrisy, have attacked me for allegedly doing the very thing that he said he did and would do again. The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question? Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:12): Why has the Attorney-General, to quote Mr Griffith QC, sought to convert this great office into one of 'closet counsel' within the Attorney-General's political office? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Senator Farrell, you are adorable! You are very, very popular on this side, but I am particularly grateful to you for this question today! It does happen to be the case, Senator Farrell, that on this issue I agree with Mr Dreyfus, although I do not agree with his hypocrisy in attacking me in a press release for taking precisely the same course that he said to Professor Appleby in her recently published book that he did and would do again. As Mr Dreyfus went on to observe: Because, despite the fact that I say the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still … Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Again, as I said, Senator Brandis may be obsessed with Mr Dreyfus— Senator Fifield interjecting— Senator Wong: It is not inconvenient. I know they have a thing, but they can have their arguments elsewhere. The question was about the submission of Dr Griffith QC about what this Attorney-General is doing. It is a serious issue. It is a quote from a man who was the Solicitor-General for 14 years and much more eminently qualified than the Attorney-General. He ought to respond. The PRESIDENT: Think you, Senator Wong. I do agree with your point of order. I remind the Attorney- General of the question. Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator BRANDIS: No jokes about the Dreyfus affair, thank you, Senator Cormann. As Mr Dreyfus said: And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Now Senator Brandis is simply flouting your ruling. The PRESIDENT: I did remind the Attorney-General of the question. The Attorney-General only has one second in which to answer. Senator BRANDIS: I do not agree. The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a further supplementary question. Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:14): I again refer to Dr Griffith QC, who says 'a government of integrity' would not shirk independent legal advice even if it is inconsistent with the government's political preference. Why is the Attorney-General further undermining what little integrity this government has? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:14): Far from doing so, Senator Farrell, what I am doing is following a wellestablished practice, which was also followed, as we have learned, by my immediate predecessor in this office, Mr Mark Dreyfus, who—if I might read it to you again, Senator, since you were not listening the first time—said that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues: 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 senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order. CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10:
Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 5
Page 67: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 55
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
show all

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?