Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis does indeed know that is a debating point. He has been around this place long enough not to intrude in remarks in that way. The point that was highlighted—this is as I go back three years from now—in a feature on Senator Brandis I think quite captures what occurred here today, and I will quote that feature. It was in The Sydney Morning Herald in July 2013, which said:

Brandis is a master of the art of being economical with the truth.

And that is the truth. It might be described more nicely than what Senator Gallagher said in her earlier comments, but perhaps the President will accept that quote as an example of what has occurred here today.

On the issues of form, let us look at the details of what the Solicitor-General was concerned about, because it is not only the Attorney-General's representation that appropriate consultation occurred it is also what was in his letter. He was concerned about the accurate public representation of Solicitor-General advice in relation to three matters: the citizenship laws for dual citizenship—I find that very important, given the debates that the parliament dealt with in the last parliament; the issue of same sex marriage; and the issue of correspondence between Sir John Kerr and the Queen in 1975.

These are all very important issues, and they again highlight that if the Solicitor-General is concerned about how this Attorney-General represents his advice we here would not be surprised. This is why the Attorney-General suffered the censure motion back in March 2015. I remind the Senate that on that occasion the motion declared that the Attorney-General was unfit to hold office, based on his bullying statements and endless attacks on the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs.

Reporting on this particular matter highlights the core issue here and the core issue with the conduct of the Attorney-General. A headline in The Australian Financial Review on 6 October said, 'Solicitor-General says A-G Brandis verballed him'—verballed him. And that is what has occurred time and time and time again. This is why he suffered that censure motion in relation to his conduct with respect to the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is why he feels he can just be rhetorical about comments about how we should deal with the conduct of bigots. This is how he manages his bookshelves in the way that he does, because he thinks he is above the rest of us. This is why the department conducted the issues around the Man Monis case so poorly: because their minister is not getting on and appropriately dealing with his role as Attorney-General.

That this situation is untenable is highlighted by the interjections coming from government senators during question time. It was not only, as was highlighted by Senator Wong and by Senator Macdonald's interjection that the Solicitor-General was a Labor appointment, it was also that he was precious. If you look at the comments from Senator Back, his concerns, 'So what? They don't matter.' This is why this situation between the first and the second law officers of the land is untenable, and why Senator Brandis should take into account censures that have occurred in the past in relation to his pattern of behaviour and resign. (Time expired)