SENATE
2e7N9wg
2e7N9wg
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
64 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016<br />
of that act. Those terms, I am sure, are well understood to the minister. They provide opportunities for the<br />
department to request further evidence and information as to the impacts of the proposed actions but, of course,<br />
the act does provide provisions to ensure that public safety is also considered amongst those different factors.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, your final supplementary question.<br />
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:45): No doubt the minister is aware that shark nets are designed<br />
to entangle and kill all sharks to reduce their inshore population numbers. Is the minister also aware that these nets<br />
kill protected and endangered species such as whales, dolphins and turtles, and thousands of non-dangerous and<br />
endangered sharks?<br />
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:46): As I indicated<br />
before, there will be proper consideration of any application that is made by the New South Wales government, as<br />
there would be by any other agency that put forward an application, or any other entity, for that matter. It will be<br />
assessed properly against the terms of the EPBC Act and, of course, any impacts upon other species, particularly<br />
species listed under the EPBC Act, would be considered as factors within such an application and its assessment.<br />
Attorney-General<br />
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:46): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer<br />
to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the conflict:<br />
… appears to be a legal difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General.<br />
What is the cause of this breakdown in the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?<br />
Is the validity of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 the only legal<br />
difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:47): Senator Chisholm, it is wrong to characterise the difference of legal<br />
opinion that I have with Mr Gleeson about the effect of the direction as a breakdown of relations. Lawyers<br />
disagree with each other about the law all the time. That is why I was at pains to try and explain to your colleague<br />
Senator Collins that legal propositions are intrinsically contestable. The best evidence of that you could possibly<br />
have is to go down the road and look at the High Court of Australia, where almost half of the decisions that the<br />
High Court gives are majority decisions in which some of the justices dissent from the majority opinion of the<br />
court. At every level in the legal profession, from the most junior lawyers of the land to the justices of the High<br />
Court of Australia, lawyers have differences of view about legal propositions. That does not mean there is a<br />
breakdown of relations between them. In fact, the entire system of our law is based upon a dialectical process of<br />
argument.<br />
Opposition senators interjecting—<br />
The PRESIDENT: On my left: you have a colleague on his feet waiting to ask a question. Senator Chisholm,<br />
your supplementary question.<br />
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:48): I refer to the High Court matter between the Bell Group in<br />
liquidation and the state of Western Australia. Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to this<br />
matter, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the manner in which it was<br />
provided?<br />
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of<br />
the Government in the Senate) (14:49): As I recall, in fact, the Solicitor-General appeared on behalf of the<br />
Commonwealth in the High Court in that matter. In relation to advice: as you know, the Commonwealth does not<br />
disclose legal advice.<br />
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order?<br />
Senator Wong: It is a point of order. The point of order is direct relevance. The Attorney-General was not<br />
asked about the content of the advice; he was simply asked whether advice was provided in relation to the Bell<br />
Group in liquidation matter.<br />
The PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General has concluded his answer. Senator Chisholm, your final<br />
supplementary question.<br />
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:49): Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to the<br />
prorogation of parliament, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the<br />
manner in which it was provided?<br />
CHAMBER