SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

70 <strong>SENATE</strong> 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
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 71 The job of the Solicitor-General is to provide legal advice to the government, to government ministers and to Heads of Department. Senator Brandis has clearly hobbled the ability of the Solicitor-General to do his job … This is not true, and I will come to why that is in a moment. He goes on to say: Senator Brandis' failure to consult the Solicitor-General breaks a century-long tradition of Attorneys-General and Solicitors- General working together on Commonwealth legal matters. These are big grand statements from Mr Dreyfus. Finally, he goes on to say that the Attorney-General needs to explain: …why he is not seeking the advice of the Solicitor-General on issues of public importance.…Senator Brandis has failed to consult the one person that he is expected to consult for legal advice. This is not true—not true. Today, Senator Brandis ended the week with a king hit against the Labor Party and its senators and their appallingly useless, futile efforts to brand Senator Brandis as a failure in his role as the chief legal officer of the nation. In contrast, Senator Brandis is an outstanding Attorney-General for this Commonwealth. Let's get to the core of the issue. What is Mr Dreyfus's real view about opinion shopping? Do not ask me. Do not even ask the Labor senators on the other side. Let's ask Mr Dreyfus himself. There it is for the world to see on page 174 of the book by Professor Gabrielle Appleby, The role of the solicitor-general. You just have to go a little way down the page. For those of us that can read English, it is easy to see; it is crystal clear. It says: Some former Attorneys-General indicated that they were willing to seek alternative legal opinions where they disagreed with the Solicitor-General's advice … They 'were' willing to seek other advice—what Mr Dreyfus would call 'opinion shopping'. Then it says: Similarly, Mark Dreyfus indicated that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government … Nonetheless, he— Mr Dreyfus— would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues— Mr Dreyfus says— "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 …" Mr Dreyfus is accusing Senator Brandis of things he has done himself in the past and that he believes are totally respectable and credible. The idea that there should not be contestability around important legal advice that governs the affairs of the Commonwealth is just ridiculous. (Time Expired) Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:19): Over the last 44 years, there have been 17-odd Attorneys- General, and there are some pretty august names in there: Gough Whitlam QC, Lionel Murphy QC, Kep Enderby QC, Sir Ivor Greenwood QC, Bob Ellicott QC, Senator Peter Durack QC, Senator Gareth Evans QC, Lionel Bowen, Michael Duffy, Duncan Kerr, Michael Lavarch, Darryl Williams QC, Philip Ruddock, Robert McClelland, Nicola Roxon, Mark Dreyfus QC and Senator George Brandis QC. Out of those 44-year history of the Australian Parliament, only one Attorney-General has had the capacity to actually be the story. Only one Attorney-General has an uncanny ability—as journalist Mark Kenny says—to put himself in the dock, not anybody else.' All week there have been questions about whether he has handled the public statements properly, where there has been contestability about who said this and Senator Brandis said that. It is amazing. Whether it is the building of a bookshelf for his office, creative use of entitlements—the allegations are all in the public and media—the story is Senator Brandis. Whether it is his description of the Hon. John Howard, the most successful Liberal Prime Minister in this country's history, as a lying rodent', always the story is Senator Brandis. The tragedy is: the Attorney General should be above all of this. The Attorney-General should be looking after the constitutional issues and the important legal mechanisms that make this great democracy function. They should not be the story. We should not have an Attorney-General, proclaiming across the floor of the Senate, that everybody has a right to be a bigot. That is not a considered approach. He might well be entitled to do that, but in my humble opinion our Attorney-General should be looking for the things that will bring us together and not the things that will tear us apart. When he gave the answer to Senator Peris that 'everybody has a right to be a bigot', Senator Brandis became the story for that news cycle. The commentariat spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the rights and the ins and outs of all that, and I do not think it brought anything to his role as Attorney-General, and it certainly did not do our constitutional respect any good. 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:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 19
Page 81: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 69
Page 125: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 11
show all

SENATE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?