SENATE

72 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
So the capacity to be the story is, as Mark Kenny states in The Sydney Morning Herald, an uncanny ability, and
our Attorney-General has continually demonstrated his capacity to be the story. With the Northern Territory royal
commission, trying to deal with that awful situation up there, the story became who said what and when. With the
shackling of the Solicitor-General's office in terms of approach to advice, the story is who said what and when. At
the forefront of all of this is our Attorney-General's capacity to be the story—not for the issues to get resolved and
not for proper progress to be made in important legal areas but, once again, for Senator Brandis to be the story. He
has displayed this uncanny knack.
In the last 40-odd years, among those 17-odd attorneys-general, there have been many colourful characters,
divisive characters, people of very strong political opinions and people who have articulated arguments about their
positions held and their positions carried out. But no-one in that list—and I can probably go back to 1972 and look
at those attorneys-general—really demonstrated this extraordinary capacity to be the story. That is very
unfortunate, because Senator Brandis is approaching three years and 24 days as the Attorney-General. Serving for
seven years and 210 days was Daryl Williams QC, who would be the least known of attorneys-general. He was
the longest serving, at seven years and 210 days.
Senator Brandis: No, he was not. He was not the longest serving. The longest serving was William Morris
Hughes.
Senator GALLACHER: Well, in my information here he served for seven years and 210 days. But my point,
I suppose, is that people on that list have done their jobs to the best of their ability and been as political as they
can, but they have not been the story, and their credibility has not been the story. On that point I will rest.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:24): Well, here we are again: day 4 of the most wet-lettuce opposition
Senate attack I have seen in my short career and, I am sure, for many years before that in this place. It is day 4 of
avoiding all major policy issues that this country faces. It is day 4 of pursuing the Attorney-General in what some
may characterise—I would say fairly—as an obsession. So I was most amused in Senate question time today to
hear the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in fact imply that the opposite is the case and that the Attorney-
General is obsessed with his shadow counterpart, Mr Dreyfus, the member for Higgins—sorry, I correct myself:
the member for Isaacs. He is just a resident of Higgins. The member for Isaacs is in fact, I think on the evidence,
obsessed with the Attorney-General, not the reverse, and the entire opposition seems to be affected by and to share
this obsession, because in almost every question on every day this week, and with every motion to take note of
answers after question time this week, we have dwelt yet again on this issue of the Solicitor-General. This might
have been a reasonable issue to pursue for one day, or even two if they were really passionate about it and really
interested in the intricacies of the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but to be
continuing to talk about this issue, to the exclusion of almost all other issues—and, frankly, more meaty, weighty
policy issues which affect the interests of their constituents—I think constitutes an obsession.
As Senator Brandis said, though, brownie points go to Senator Urquhart for taking up a policy issue in the last
question of the week, the last question of question time today, the question of wind farms. I was saddened to hear,
though, as a former fellow member of the Environment and Communications Committee, her lack of concern
about herds in relation to wind farms. But I am sure that is not a reflection of her lack of concern for the
environment and animals more generally.
In question time today, we had Senator O'Neill, senator for New South Wales, stand up and ask a question
about the Solicitor-General. She could have asked, as my colleague Senator Duniam did, about counter-terrorism
raids taking place in her home state. That might be of interest to her constituents. I suggest, if you ran an opinion
poll, it would probably be of more concern than the Solicitor-General. We had Senator Farrell, senator for South
Australia, asking about the Solicitor-General. I suspect his constituents are more interested in the fact that they
had no power for 24 hours—that their power system entirely failed under a Labor government of some 14 years
that he has had some hand in. But no; he would prefer to pursue the issue of the Solicitor-General. We had our
new Senate colleague Senator Chisholm from Queensland ask a question about the Solicitor-General. I suspect,
again, that his constituents might be more interested in the partnership with Singapore cemented this week, which
Senator Macdonald asked about and which will be of tangible benefit and interest to his constituents, particularly
in the north of Queensland, where a number of bases will be enhanced in a joint relationship with Singapore. We
could have asked about that issue, but we did not.
This issue has been well ventilated and well explained. But I have to say I am pleased that we have gone into
the fourth day of this issue, because it has unearthed a very timely publication, I must say, by Professor
Appleby—and full congratulations to her and her publishers on getting such a timely publication out just very
recently, to precede this debate. We heard in a media release from Mr Dreyfus on 7 October that it is a shocking
practice to engage in what he describes as 'opinion shopping for legal advice'—that is, seeking alternative legal
advice to that of the Solicitor-General. Without having delved into Mr Dreyfus's role as Attorney-General, I would
CHAMBER