Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in closure on the debate and I want to make some very brief points. The first point I make is that the government has manifestly failed to defend the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. The consistent approach from government senators has been to continue the attack and criticism of Professor Triggs, and I think that demonstrates the paucity of the defence of the Attorney-General.

The second point I make is in response to the Attorney-General's proposition that he is entitled to express no confidence in the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. I say to this chamber that his actions and the actions of this government have gone well beyond that. What we have seen is a partisan, nasty, undignified and personal campaign to oust the president of the commission, to oust a statutory office holder. This Attorney-General has been complicit in it and he has been a party to it.

The next point I want to make is a timing point. It is important to note when on the uncontested evidence the meeting between Secretary Moraitis, doing the bidding of the Attorney-General, and the President of the Human Rights Commission occurred. The report in question was handed to the government in November 2014. The discussion with the secretary in which he, at Senator Brandis's request, indicated no confidence, offered another job and, on Professor Triggs's evidence—which I certainly think had more weight—encouraged her to resign occurred on 3 February, and the report was on 11 February 2015. So we had the Attorney-General of Australia seeking to pressure the President of the Human Rights Commission to resign before the report was made public. When she did not resign, the avalanche of attacks began; and they continue. This government and its Attorney retaliated directly by unleashing the attack dogs from the Prime Minister down.

I say, and we say, the Attorney-General should be censured. He failed to carry out his role, as Attorney-General, of defending the Human Rights Commission from political attack. In fact, he joined in on the attack, which was aimed at intimidating the president. He sought to subvert the statutory protection of the president's position by pressuring her to resign and by offering an alternative position. If he had succeeded, this would have seriously damaged the independence of the commission. I ask the chamber to consider what message this would have sent to other agencies in his own portfolio, like the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Law Reform commission and others. The message would have been, 'Toe the line or your job will be on the line.' This is not the conduct we expect of the first law officer of the land. It would have created a chilling effect for all independent agencies in this nation, from the corporate regulators to agencies charged with protecting the rights of consumers.

The nub of the Attorney-General's argument is that he excuses his conduct by saying that the commission is not a chapter III court, therefore it is not independent of the executive government. This justification for these political attacks and his conduct will certainly be startling news to agencies like the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the tax office and the Competition and Consumer Commission, whose independence from political interference is so important. I am extremely disappointed that Senator Xenophon has swallowed this defence, because the Law Council of Australia, the Bar Association and lawyers across the country have not swallowed this defence. It is a spurious argument.

We say: Senator Brandis's conduct shows he does not understand his role as Attorney-General. It shows he does not understand how to behave. It shows he is not fit to hold this office, and this Senate should censure him. This Senate should stand as a bulwark against this excess and abuse of executive power that we have seen in relation to a statutory body. We should support the independence of the commission. This minister should be censured.