SENATE

70 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
information about the independence of barristers. I had not actually had that information before, so I thank the
Attorney for that.
I think most of the issue relates to the statement constantly repeated by the Attorney that there can be
differences of opinion amongst people with legal qualifications. No-one doubts that. In fact, you only have to be
in this place for a short time to see that there will be, can be and often are differences of opinion between people
with legal qualifications, but that was not the point of the questions. In terms of the process, the opposition was
exploring issues around the legislation, which has been brought before us, that looks at the role of the Solicitor-
General, and also the opinions that have been brought forward by a person who previously held that position.
Whilst we know that there will be further debate on this process, particularly tomorrow in the legal and
constitutional committee inquiry into this legislation, I think it is important to note that the issues we were raising
are not so much about a difference of opinion but actually about the process leading up to the introduction of this
legislation.
We do not doubt that the Attorney, the leader of the government in this place, has every right to have
differences of opinion on information that comes forward. What we do say and what we question—and there was
a specific question about the relationship between the Attorney and the Solicitor-General—is that there must be
some understanding of the deep respect for that role. This is the point that has been brought forward. In terms of
the Attorney's relationship with the Solicitor-General, there must be not only a private understanding of a strong
legal respect but also a public understanding that these two senior legal officers in our system have respect for
each other and the views they put forward. Never, never was there any intent to say that they had to have the same
opinion.
Certainly through the answers to this place over the previous few days a key issue around consultation has
arisen. When the Attorney was bringing forward the legislation into the Senate on the way that opinions by the
Solicitor-General may be taken by members of the government and the very important aspect of that role, the
issue was whether the current Solicitor-General had been given the respect of appropriate consultation on that
decision. Answers were made and there will be a process taking place tomorrow. For me, one of the core aspects
has been the ongoing public discussion around how the Attorney and the Solicitor-General interact. That was the
core issue in terms of what the opposition has been asking over the last few days. And today's answers by the
Attorney actually bring me no closer to any understanding of what this relationship is. It is not about having
different opinions; it is about having an effective working relationship based on respect. So, in terms of the
questions we asked today, we brought forward the opinion of a previous Solicitor-General on what the impact of
this legislation would be. I know that the Attorney—not to a question on this particular issue—did refer to some
language as being 'flamboyant'. I think the statements that were made by the previous Solicitor-General did tend
to be flamboyant as well, but he clearly made the point that should the changes be made the role, the focus, the
integrity and the status of the Solicitor-General could be impeded. In fact, in his opinion it would be impeded. It is
important in this place that we understand what the exact relationship is— (Time expired)
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:14): We saw it all today;
we saw it all yesterday and we have seen it all week—a huge lack of imagination on the part of the Australian
Labor Party in the Australian Senate. All week, they tried, hopelessly and unsuccessfully—and I will come to why
'unsuccessfully' in a brief moment—to prosecute the most spurious of arguments against the Attorney-General.
You are right; they could have been focusing on issues of substance, rising consumer confidence in the
economy. They could have been talking about industrial disputation in the construction sector and why industrial
relations reform, which this Senate will debate in a few weeks' time, is important. They could have discussed a
whole variety of issues—but, no. They started on a course of action that failed this afternoon with Senator
Brandis's revelation that Mark Dreyfus is guilty of grand hypocrisy.
So let's start at the beginning. I have great respect for Senator Moore, but Senator Moore's suggestion that this
is actually not about contestability and legal advice and that this is actually not about whether or not the Attorney-
General is free to get other sources of legal advice—that is exactly what this issue is about. And why do we know
that? Because that is how Mark Dreyfus started the argument on 7 October.
Let me read from Mr Dreyfus's media statement of 7 October. To make it easy for you, I will start with the title:
Brandis opinion shopping another sign of government dysfunction'. Mr Dreyfus uses some very, very colourful
language. He says:
…that Attorney-General Senator George Brandis has been 'opinion shopping' for legal advice goes to the heart of concerns
about the failure of Senator Brandis to work with Australia's second law officer …
And I will come in a moment to why that is not true. It goes on to say:
CHAMBER