George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I was not in question time today because I was at the High Court representing the Leader of the Opposition at the swearing in of the 49th justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Gageler. The swearing in was attended by all of the members of the High Court, by three former chief justices and four other retired justices, and by the chief justices of almost every Australian jurisdiction.

Mr Gageler, or Justice Gageler, as he now is, had until his appointment to the High Court—an appointment, I interpolate to say, welcomed by the opposition—occupied the office of Commonwealth Solicitor-General, known colloquially as the second law officer of the Commonwealth. The welcoming speech for Mr Gageler was given by the Attorney-General, Ms Roxon, the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The majesty of that ceremony, when the second law officer of the Commonwealth was welcomed to the High Court by the first law officer of the Commonwealth, reminded me of just how important it is that those who occupy positions of custodianship of our legal system—the chief justices, the justices of our superior courts, the first law officer of the Commonwealth and the second law officer of the Commonwealth—discharge their duties so as to enhance the dignity of and protect the public respect for those institutions.

Of the various officers I have mentioned, the office of the Attorney-General is of course a little different, because under our Constitution it must be occupied by a member of parliament. It is in that limited sense a political office. But it is not an office like that of any other cabinet minister. Because, unlike any other cabinet minister, the Commonwealth Attorney-General shares with the Chief Justice and shares with the Solicitor-General—shares with those who are the pillars of our legal system—an obligation to protect the reputation of that legal system, to enhance public respect for it, and to defend it when it is attacked; to show by his or her conduct that he or she can be trusted in the discharge of that most important constitutional function.

That is a task which great Liberal attorneys-general—such as, for instance, Bob Ellicott, Tom Hughes, Sir Garfield Barwick, Daryl Williams, Philip Ruddock or Sir Nigel Bowen—have never failed to understand. But I am sorry to say that it is a task which the current occupant of that office entirely fails to grasp.

I like Nicola Roxon personally. I had a perfectly pleasant exchange with her in the High Court not an hour ago. But the fact is—I say this with regret—that, unlike her predecessor the Hon. Robert McClelland, who never embarrassed himself in the office, the behaviour of the current Attorney-General, in relation to proceedings brought by Mr James Ashby against the Commonwealth and against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has fallen below the high standards demanded by that office.

And if you do not believe me, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, then believe the judge, Justice Rares, of the Federal Court of Australia, who has the conduct of those proceedings, who was moved to say last Thursday something that I am sure has never before been said by any judge against any Commonwealth Attorney-General. Referring to the fact that Ms Roxon had facilitated favourable treatment of Mr Slipper by protecting him from media attention upon his arrival at court last week Justice Rares said, 'This undermines public confidence in the courts.'

What a terrible, terrible indictment, for a Commonwealth Attorney-General to be reprimanded by a justice of the Federal Court that her conduct ran the risk of undermining public confidence in the courts. Throughout the history of the Ashby and Slipper litigation I am afraid to say that Ms Roxon has been guilty of a litany of improper conduct and errors of judgement which show that she just does not understand her constitutional obligation to be a custodian—a pillar, a safeguard—of the impartiality and integrity of the courts.

First of all, when Mr Ashby commenced his proceedings, on 15 June Ms Roxon attacked him personally. She attacked his motives. She suggested that the litigation were Liberal and National Party shenanigans. Meanwhile, she stood idly by when her senior ministerial colleagues made claims as absurd as those of Senator Bob Carr, that Mr Ashby was more rehearsed than a kabuki actor, when Mr Craig Emerson attacked Mr Ashby and when Mr Anthony Albanese, never known for his common sense, said that this was the Australian Watergate. And what did the Commonwealth Attorney-General do? She fell silent while those attacks on a gay man claiming to have been sexually harassed, were allowed to be made.

She was asked about this by Barry Cassidy on Insiders on Sunday, by the way, now that the case has settled, and this was what she had to say:

… there is still a live matter before the court between Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby. So we do have to be careful in commentary that we want to provide about any detail of that case that’s still before the court.

It is all very well to have been alive to those principles on 7 October, but she was not alive to them on 15 June, when she had said the very things that, on Sunday morning, she said it was improper to say.

Then the case against the Commonwealth was settled, and Ms Roxon issued a press release on 28 September. She said that it was settled because it would have been a lawyers' picnic and that one had to be mindful of the Commonwealth's obligations to taxpayers to achieve the most cost-effective outcomes for legal proceedings, heedless of the fact that the Commonwealth Legal Services' directions, which she administers, prescribe in unambiguous terms that merely to save costs is not, of itself, a proper reason for the Commonwealth to settle a case. So Ms Roxon either misapplied her own guidelines or she misrepresented the Commonwealth's motive in settling the case.

She continued, by the way, to maintain that it was vexatious. And then, as I mentioned before, it was revealed, to give her credit where it is due, Ms Roxon apologised to the court—she was forced, I daresay to apologise to the court—for she facilitated preferential treatment to Mr Slipper so as to convey to public the idea that Mr Slipper was being looked after by the Commonwealth of Australia, given special, privileged access to the private entrance to the court when poor Mr Ashby, the individual litigant with the courage to take on the entire political establishment of the country, was left to fend for himself in a forest of journalists at the front door. What sort of message does that send to litigants who want to commence proceedings—particularly proceedings against powerful institutions like governments or big corporations—that if you have a big institution standing behind you on this Attorney-General's watch you will get favourable treatment?

Finally, as is revealed by Dennis and Leo Shanahan in their stories in the Australian this morning, there remains an unresolved question about Ms Roxon's interference in the conduct of the case by the Commonwealth's counsel, Mr Julian Burnside QC. The opposition takes the unusual step of putting down an MPI notice like this for one simple reason: to make the point that whoever the occupant of the office of Commonwealth Attorney-General is must be impartial, must not undermine the courts. I am sad to say that the current occupant of that office does not conduct herself by those— (Time expired)