SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

72 <strong>SENATE</strong> 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
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 73 have thought that it would be an entirely reasonable thing to rely on more than just one person for legal advice. The Solicitor-General is an eminent lawyer, but he is not God. His views on law are no doubt worth seeking, but not to the exclusion of all others. As it happens, it turns out it is not just the current Attorney-General who has that view and that belief; it is also a distinguished previous Attorney-General—a short-serving one, to take up Senator Gallacher's point, but an Attorney-General nonetheless: Mr Dreyfus, who himself said in an interview with Professor Appleby in her recently published book: 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. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that. Well, I suggest that Mr Dreyfus has a little bit more to learn in his legal career, and I hope we see evidence of that soon. Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:29): What we have seen today is really a continuation of what we have seen from Senator Brandis since the dispute with the Solicitor-General first started, and that is a consistent effort to be tricky with his answers. I think we need to look at where this is all heading for the Attorney-General. In my view, it is a descent by the Attorney-General into a real Donald Trump view of the world. What goes on in the locker room—I am not talking about the locker room here; that is another matter for Trump. I do not know what happens in the Attorney-General's locker room. What I am referring to here is an effort from Trump, like what we are seeing from the Attorney-General, to suggest facts do not matter. They are creating their own world views of how they operate and how they answer their questions. Let's go through the pattern of what we saw today and what we have seen since this first became an issue. Since the Solicitor-General's statements last week, the Attorney-General and other government members have simply doubled down on their misleading statements, which are clearly at odds with the acknowledged course of events. Senator Brandis is continuing to deny the sky is blue and is setting a very bad example both as Attorney-General and as Leader of the Government in the Senate. The answers the Attorney-General gave today—indeed, all this week—leave a lot to be desired. Misleading parliament is not the only worrisome part of this whole sordid affair. There is the continued procedural bungling by the Attorney-General who is clearly not across his brief. Let's look at the history of some of those issues. First there were the proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, where the Attorney-General infamously said, 'You have a right to be a bigot.' The Attorney-General did a real good job there of building community opposition to that one. Let's not forget the poorly-treated President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, and the inability of the Attorney-General to maintain that relationship. You can see a real pattern of events occurring here. Then there was the claim to have consulted with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Gooda, before establishing the Don Dale royal commission, when no such consultation occurred. Now there are the false claims to have consulted the Solicitor- General on the proposed changes that would effectively reduce the quality of the advice that the government receives. Yesterday, we saw this bungling spread to the other side of the parliament as well. Yesterday, for the first time in the history of Federation, an opposition second reading amendment was carried in the House. This was not the government's plan; the government simply forgot which way they were supposed to be voting. This is what I am saying: this is the pattern of what we are seeing from the government. The Attorney-General is supposed to be a leader, and this is what is happening under his watch. This means the House of Representatives passed a unanimous resolution about how bad the government is on multinational tax avoidance. While we are talking about the Attorney-General's slippery story, let's not forget the desperate power grab at the core of this. Do not take my word for it; what does the former Solicitor-General Dr Gavan Griffith, who was in the role for 14 years, have to say about the proposed changes? He says 'the result will be the demeaning of the office to the equivalent of attracting monkeys.' This is from the former Solicitor-General Gavan Griffith, who was in the role for 14 years. He went on to say: A government of integrity should not shirk from obtaining disinterested peak advice of integrity from its SG. It should not shop around, or even refrain from obtaining the second law officer’s advice on matters where is suspects the advice may be contra the government’s preferences. At a time when this bumbling government cannot even run a parliament properly, it should be taking all the independent advice it can get. I come back to my important point about the Trump world view and how this fits into it for the Attorney- General. What we have seen is the unravelling of this strategy from Donald Trump in America, where he has been trying to operate in a post facts world. That is clearly starting to do him damage. I think what we have seen from 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:
Page 33 and 34: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 21
Page 83: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 71
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?