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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Solicitor-General.

Today we saw the same old George on display—the same slipperiness, the same word games and the same fundamental lack of decency. Yet again, we have seen that this Attorney-General is one who fails to meet the fundamental obligations of his office. He is a serial offender. On so many occasions, over an extended period of time, he has demonstrated to the Senate his arrogance, his contempt and his failure to be upfront and clear and honest with this chamber. Senator Brandis's latest effort is an attempt to undermine the independence of a senior statutory office holder, the Solicitor-General, and then mislead the parliament about his conduct. Let's have a look at the facts.

On 4 May 2016, three days before the last parliament was dissolved, Senator Brandis issued a direction amending the Legal Services Directions. His amendment bars the Solicitor-General from providing legal opinions or advice to anyone in government without the Attorney's permission. This is nothing more than a power grab by Senator Brandis. It is a bid to control the flow of legal advice from the Solicitor-General to government departments and to other senior figures in the government—even to the Prime Minister or the Governor General. The Solicitor-General has said he is not aware of any time in Australia's history where the Solicitor-General has been prohibited or prevented from giving legal advice without the Attorney-General's approval.

The substance of the changes to the Legal Services Directions is bad enough—and the Senate will have an opportunity to take a view about that—but Senator Brandis has made matters worse by tabling a misleading explanatory statement about his amending direction. His statement said:

As the direction relates to the process for referring a question of law to the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General has consulted the Solicitor-General.

This was a mislead of the Senate. And on 12 September 2016 in this place, in answer to a question in question time, there was a second mislead of the Senate when Senator Brandis was asked whether or not he stood by that previous assurance. He was then asked about when and how the Solicitor-General had been consulted. He replied:

During the course of a meeting in my office on 30 November 2015.

This was a third mislead of the Senate. How do we know this? Because the Solicitor-General, the very person who was supposed to have been consulted, has said he was not. In his submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the Solicitor-General says:

... there was no consultation with me at any time.

This could not be clearer. He is being very clear that the Attorney-General has misled the Senate, because the two answers cannot simultaneously stand. The Solicitor-General goes on to say:

Significantly, neither the making of a Direction nor the requirement for pre-approval from the Attorney-General before a Solicitor-General could provide advice was discussed at the meeting of 30 November 2015, at any subsequent meetings, or in any subsequent correspondence.

This is an open-and-shut case—a clear example of a minister misleading the Senate.

In fact, we saw today Senator Brandis's defence. His defence was: 'We had a general chat. We had a chat in November', and somehow, 'If we had a chat about the law or Lionel Murphy or perhaps even the weather and our families, that constitutes sufficient consultation for me, as a minister in this chamber, to put it into an explanatory memorandum and to answer questions in question time about it.' It is outrageous and it is being done for this reason: the Attorney wants to shut down the Solicitor-General as a source of independent advice. He sought to achieve this through underhanded conduct. He tried to sneak the direction through just before parliament was dissolved. He told parliament he had consulted. It was a clear attempt to deceive the parliament into thinking the Solicitor-General was on board with the changes. He tried unsuccessfully to stop the committee inquiring into this and, when he was caught out, he misled the parliament again.

This is not the first time we have seen this behaviour from the minister. He has previously misled the parliament. He has certainly failed to maintain the standards required of the Attorney-General. He should resign. (Time expired)