Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on today's urgency motion. If one listened to those opposite in relation to this matter, one would think that this matter—the issue of the rule of law in our country—is a storm in a teacup and that we are pedants on this side of the chamber, in the words of Senator Reynolds, for raising this matter and expressing our concerns as to the Attorney-General's handling of this matter. In fact, we go so far as to question the integrity of the Attorney-General in relation to this matter.

This matter is the subject of a very good article on the ABC, put together by Associate Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the University of New South Wales Law School. The headline of this particular article is 'Standoff between Brandis and solicitor-general threatens the rule of law'. When we are talking about a matter which I think is generally seen as being threatening to the rule of law, we on this side of the chamber will get up and defend the institutions. It is quite disappointing that, when Australians think about the Liberal Party, historically it has held itself out to be a party that considers itself to be a custodian of institutions and wanting to preserve the institutions of our country which underpin the rule of law and so many other things that are so important to us. This is a party which lost its way many years ago. I talk about the 1975 constitutional crisis, because it does come up, strangely enough, in the course of this particular matter. One only has to go back to the 1975 constitutional crisis to see that respect for the institutions, respect for the conventions that are so important for our democracy, are flagrantly disregarded by those on the other side.

The job of the Solicitor-General is to provide legal advice to the government—to government ministers and to heads of departments. It is quite clear that the Attorney-General has attempted to hobble the ability of the Solicitor-General to do his job. I was very interested in the submission of the Solicitor-General to the inquiry. Regarding the direction that was issued by the Attorney-General, he said:

... it imposes a prohibition or restraint that the Solicitor-General may not be asked to furnish, and may not furnish, an opinion on a question of law unless the Attorney-General has referred, or consented to a referral of, the question of law to the Solicitor-General.

I continue to quote the Solicitor-General's submission. He said:

It then sets out a process for seeking the Attorney-General's consent.

I make this very important point:

It does not set out the matters that the Guidance Note (before its revision) sought to address, such as when the Solicitor-General should be briefed to appear or advise, how the Solicitor-General should be briefed, how the Solicitor-General should be contacted and so on.

We know from previous contributions this afternoon that the matter arose to some extent by virtue of a letter from the Solicitor-General on 12 November. It is quite clear that the Solicitor-General had expressed certain concerns about the process for seeking and acting on advice to him on significant matters. He pointed out three specific areas which were recent examples where there was a need for urgency of improved coordination, and those matters were citizenship, marriage equality and, as I alluded to earlier, correspondence between Sir John Kerr and the Queen in 1975.

I digress for a second. I found that interesting, and I think this goes to the point. The Solicitor-General was trying to identify the fact that one part of the government provided advice on a matter and another part, the Solicitor-General, had been asked to give advice on this matter back in 2013. It is extremely important that, in matters of such sensitivity, you have all parts of government understanding what they are doing and that it is properly coordinated. This was a very legitimate matter that was raised by the Solicitor-General, and what happened? The Attorney-General used that as an opportunity to seek a power grab, if you like—to hobble the ability, as I said, of the Solicitor-General to do his job. This is a very serious matter. But apparently Senator Brandis would like to see all the advice the Solicitor-General gives to other ministers. One would understand that is fair enough. You would expect that to happen in a healthy relationship between the two top law officers, but this government, and indeed this Attorney-General, do things differently. We now have the first and second law officers of the land involved in a very public confrontation and conflict, and this is not what should be happening. This is a matter which will be further looked at. We call on the government to uphold the— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.