John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It does appear as if the MPI has been put down by the opposition for one simple reason, as Senator Brandis said. It does appear that that simple reason is to give an opportunity for Senator Brandis to grandstand in the Senate for 10 minutes.

Senator Brandis has spoken in the debate. He has almost exploded with indignation, pomposity and outrage. But I think it might be helpful to have a close look at the facts and how the Attorney-General has dealt with the issues that have been raised this afternoon by Senator Brandis.

It is commonplace and entirely appropriate for the Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, to be regularly briefed and consulted by Commonwealth legal teams on legal cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. There are any number of cases—as Senator Brandis would know—where this has occurred. In fact, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth chairs a significant legal issues meeting that is held quarterly which focuses on legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. I am sure even Senator Brandis, were he to become Attorney-General, would also engage in such processes. It makes sense, as happens in so many other matters, that in the Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper matter, for the Attorney-General to have discussions with the government's legal team. I would have thought that it would be more remarkable, frankly, if she did not.

You would appreciate, Madam Acting Deputy President, as I know Senator Brandis and members of the opposition do, that I am not a lawyer. But I am aware that the government has entered into a deed with Mr Ashby and has settled his case with the Commonwealth. There remains an outstanding legal proceeding between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. While mediation was held last week, that mediation was unable to settle the matter between those two parties. But as far as the matter between Mr Ashby and the Commonwealth is concerned, that matter was settled and the terms of the settlement are public. Those terms include: an express provision that the Commonwealth does not accept liability; a $50,000 payment to Mr Ashby; and an agreement to offer training and information to parliamentarians and parliamentarians' staff about sexual harassment and associated complaints. If I can find that information out, so can Senator Brandis. This settlement certainly appears to be consistent with all Commonwealth obligations, responsibilities and legal advice. And it is a fact that the settlement was made in accordance with legal advice from senior counsel. It is a fact that the settlement, as I understand it, was made on the basis of advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. Like Senator Brandis, I did read closely the Attorney-General's statement of 28 September. The Attorney-General said:

The Commonwealth has been mindful of its obligations to taxpayers to achieve the most cost-effective outcomes for legal proceedings amongst other considerations.

The Attorney-General also made it clear—and Senator Brandis quoted these words—that the case was 'a lawyer's picnic that could have extended well into the year' That does seem pretty accurate to me given again that it has been reported that the costs of the litigation to date are $730,000 with, as we are told, more bills to come. I think that in my time as a Senator I have tried to be quite meticulous and consistent about not raising matters that are before a court or are operational matters with the Australian Federal Police and it is not a practice—

Senator Brandis interjecting—