David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Your interjection was magnificently timed, Senator. Thank you.

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, I urge you to deal with this disorderly conduct. Today we see that the shadow Attorney-General does not believe that the Attorney-General should be involved in being briefed on legal proceedings. That is right. We have heard from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General should not speak to government engaged solicitors. What errant nonsense! It is therefore clear that he would not want to undertake a large part of the Attorney-General's workload should he ever be successfully appointed to that position. As the first law officer, it is perfectly normal for the Attorney-General to be regularly briefed and consulted by government legal teams on significant cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. Of course, when one sets it out in that way it seems blindingly obvious; but, alas, not to those opposite. Briefings have occurred in the past on everything from whaling to the chaplains case through to immigration matters, the Federal Magistrates case and, of course, in more recent times, the tobacco litigation.

The Attorney-General also personally chairs a quarterly significant legal issues meeting, which discusses the legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. All of this is natural and all of this is, of course, longstanding custom and practice. Is Senator Brandis really saying today that, if he were Attorney-General, he would not regularly receive briefings and want to be consulted on significant legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party? Is he saying that he would not perform one of the key roles of the job to which he aspires?

In considering the remarks that have been made earlier in this debate concerning the Slipper-Ashby settlement, I will be short. I will be short in relation to the issue of the legal case of Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby for obvious reasons. This government has been mindful of its obligations to the court to use judicial resources appropriately and its obligations to taxpayers to minimise costs by trying to achieve settlement. Settlements are not about who is right and who is wrong; they are about bringing matters to a speedy conclusion, which is what the Commonwealth has now achieved. This is something that I believe is well understood by the shadow Attorney-General. But, of course, nonetheless he does not resist the temptation to try and score a political point.

The matter between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper continues before the Federal Court. The judge has reserved his decision in the matter of Mr Slipper's application alleging that the matter is an abuse of process. In considering the text messages that have received so much coverage today and in recent days, let it simply be said that I and, I believe, all of us would condemn these comments. We condemn sexism wherever it resides. But, again, I should note that these matters are currently before the courts. I do not believe it is appropriate—and those opposite should support me in this—for a political debate to be conducted while this matter is currently before the Federal Court of Australia. This Commonwealth takes sexual harassment very seriously. While our settlement does not admit liability, the government has agreed to establish specific training for members and senators in relation to issues of sexual harassment as well as to staff on how to deal with any such issues.

Senator Brandis has said that it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General to provide an explanation about the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court. It is actually completely appropriate for the Attorney-General to provide a description of the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court—for example, which applications are being made and heard. Remember, it was the Commonwealth that was being sued and, in defending that complaint, filed an objection and made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. Those documents and the arguments are public documents on the court file. This is a particularly important point—public documents on the court file.

As of last Thursday, the Commonwealth had settled its dispute with Mr Ashby, both his complaint against the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's complaint about the process. It is therefore not the intention of the government to make further comments about the proceedings between the remaining two parties. What is fascinating about the MPI today is that the Attorney-General, who has been attacked for her involvement as part of the so-called handbag hit squad and attacked for not talking about policy, is in fact getting on with her job in an appropriate and conscientious way. Meanwhile, Senator Brandis wants to attack her for doing what her job requires. The coalition's position flip-flops between the Attorney-General talking about personality, not action.

Today in the Punch the Attorney-General talked about what the government has and will deliver for women and has contrasted that with what the Liberals failed to do in their 11 years in office. In doing this, the Attorney-General has been assuring that the debate goes past personality and rather looks at the policies and actions of politicians. Senator Brandis has clearly failed the action test when it comes to being an appropriate Attorney-General, and the only way he can deal with his failure is to try and finger-point. Let us not forget that it is a constant complaint from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General is doing her job. Think again to when he complained about the Attorney's role in successfully defending plain-packaging legislation. He aspires to one day take up the position of Attorney-General, but I ask: what will he do if he does? We know he will not defend the Commonwealth against multinational companies trying to dictate our laws. We know he will not take briefings about legal matters the Commonwealth is engaged in. But what he will do, as he has demonstrated, is intervene in independent police matters and try and force police investigations when they might pertain to those he judges to be his political opponents. The call for politicians to be judged not on personality but rather on actions is one that should be ringing in the ears of the shadow Attorney-General today.