SENATE
2e7N9wg
2e7N9wg
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 59<br />
scored better than New Zealand and the Netherlands, and the same as France, the US and Germany on<br />
completeness. On transparency, Australia scored better than France, Norway and Germany and the same as the<br />
EU, New Zealand and the United States. It is a demonstration that we have in place peer assessed and globally<br />
assessed measures and activities that demonstrate Australia delivers and meets its commitments. We have policies<br />
in place that are meeting the 2020 commitments. Those policies are subject to reviews over coming years that are<br />
well-known and well-published. As a result of those reviews, the pathway will become clearer for meeting the<br />
2030 targets—just as we have done on every single prior occasion.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.<br />
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:21): Given the government's scare<br />
campaign on the carbon price, will the government now answer the question from China requesting modelling on<br />
what the repeal of the carbon price has meant for our fast-accelerating energy-sector emissions, and how this has<br />
led to poorly allocated investment in our already pollution-intensive economy?<br />
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:21): As is frequently<br />
the case in this debate, the Greens confuse means with ends. The ends are that Australia is meeting its<br />
international obligations in relation to reducing emissions levels. The means that the Greens want to talk about<br />
are, of course, the application of new taxes to get rid of parts of the economy that they just do not like. We are<br />
committed to the means of reducing our emissions most efficiently in a way that best protects Australia's<br />
economic interests and meets our international obligations—but without destroying the jobs or livelihoods of<br />
other Australians. The Greens can continue, if they want, with their fixation on wanting to introduce new taxes<br />
and new measures that would be focused more on disrupting the Australian economy, creating job losses across<br />
the Australian economy and creating higher prices for Australians. We will stand by the fact that our policies in<br />
place, right now, are working and are meeting and exceeding the targets we have committed to.<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:22): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I<br />
refer to the submission of the former Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith QC, to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs<br />
Committee in which he says the result of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction<br />
2016—I stress the direction, not the minister's attempt to divert attention by referring to Attorneys-General's<br />
conduct—'will be the demeaning of the office to the equivalent of attracting monkeys'.<br />
Does the Attorney-General agree?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:23): I do not agree.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, a supplementary question.<br />
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:23): I again refer to the submission of the former Solicitor-<br />
General, Dr Griffith QC, in which he states:<br />
The Law Officers Act might be better to be repealed rather than the Office demeaned to this level …<br />
Does the Attorney-General agree?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Senator Collins, I do not—I do not agree with Dr Griffith. As Mr Dreyfus<br />
observed recently, if I have learnt anything in my legal career I have learnt that most difficult legal problems are<br />
capable of another outcome. I know Senator Collins is not educated in the law, but legal propositions are innately<br />
contestable. That is the point about the law.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order.<br />
Senator Wong: My point of order is on relevance, again. The Attorney continues to refer to Mr Dreyfus<br />
seeking additional opinions. The issue in question is that this Attorney is trying to stop, prevent, ministers and<br />
other parts of the Commonwealth seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. It is entirely different. He is seeking<br />
to prevent ministers and other parts of the government seeking independent legal advice from the Solicitor-<br />
General unless he ticks off on it.<br />
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Brandis.<br />
Senator BRANDIS: On this question and previous questions today and previous questions throughout the<br />
week the point that is being sought to be made in various ways is that I am on my own on this.<br />
Senator Wong: You are.<br />
CHAMBER