Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the Attorney-General's answer in relation to this matter. As a member of the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, when I first saw the terms of reference and who was appearing at the first inquiry I was somewhat surprised that the Attorney-General had not been called to provide any evidence. After reading the Attorney-General's evidence that he provided to the committee, I can see why the Labor chair did not initially ask the Attorney-General for his side of the argument.

I think once you strip away all of the highly personal and overblown rhetoric against the Attorney-General himself—when you actually have a look at the facts of the matter—I think it does show everything that I think is wrong with the standard of debate in this chamber today. Clearly, the questions and the acknowledgements by those opposite that consultation did occur show that this argument is nothing more than another political witch-hunt about the Attorney-General. But it is also, I would characterise, a penance debate on the definition of consultation, because even Senator Gallagher in her question acknowledged that consultation had occurred. If anybody goes through and reads the Attorney-General's submission and also the attachments to that submission, I believe that they can come to no other conclusion than that significant consultation did occur throughout the process of putting this Legal Service Direction and associated guidance note together.

Let us have a look at what consultation did actually occur. The Solicitor-General wrote formally to the Attorney-General on 12 November last year, saying that there were inadequate provisions for the referral to seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General from anybody but the Attorney-General, and that the issue needed to be addressed. The meeting that discussed that issue was held between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General on 30 November, and the Solicitor-General was invited by the Attorney-General to provide additional information and submission. The Solicitor-General did so; 14 weeks later he provided a draft copy of the Solicitor-General's written suggestions, which the Attorney-General took into account in finalising the new legal services direction and guidance.

The Attorney-General himself is the first law officer and he is the decision maker. The second legal adviser—it is my understanding the Solicitor-General is an adviser. The Attorney-General is required to take into account that advice but, as one of the last Labor speakers tried to conflate, the Solicitor-General does not have to be on board with every single word of any determination the Attorney-General makes. On 11 March we had the information provided by the Solicitor-General, and then on 23 March the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General met again and the Solicitor-General in fact was thanked by the Attorney-General for his comments that had been provided. From the information provided by the Attorney-General it was clear that he had said that he had taken into consideration the Solicitor-General's advice. On 4 May the direction and guidance note was issued.

So we have several months of personal and written contact between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on this matter—and on a matter that nobody, including those opposite, have said at any point in time in this debate, that I am aware of, that the legal service direction and guidance notice needed updating. In terms of the substance of what was decided, nobody on the other side has actually addressed the substance that this was something that was required, that the department themselves had actually confirmed did constitute the legal consideration and guidance that the Attorney-General took from this.

It really does come down to a quite disgraceful attempt by those opposite to conflate a whole range of issues on this matter. On my reading of the evidence it is very, very clear: the Attorney-General was required to consult on a matter raised by the Solicitor-General to him on multiple occasions, and that advice was taken into consideration in the preparation of the new legal service direction and the guidance. I am quite disappointed in the approach taken by those opposite— (Time expired)