Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We saw it all today; we saw it all yesterday and we have seen it all week—a huge lack of imagination on the part of the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Senate. All week, they tried, hopelessly and unsuccessfully—and I will come to why 'unsuccessfully' in a brief moment—to prosecute the most spurious of arguments against the Attorney-General.

You are right; they could have been focusing on issues of substance, rising consumer confidence in the economy. They could have been talking about industrial disputation in the construction sector and why industrial relations reform, which this Senate will debate in a few weeks' time, is important. They could have discussed a whole variety of issues—but, no. They started on a course of action that failed this afternoon with Senator Brandis's revelation that Mark Dreyfus is guilty of grand hypocrisy.

So let's start at the beginning. I have great respect for Senator Moore, but Senator Moore's suggestion that this is actually not about contestability and legal advice and that this is actually not about whether or not the Attorney-General is free to get other sources of legal advice—that is exactly what this issue is about. And why do we know that? Because that is how Mark Dreyfus started the argument on 7 October.

Let me read from Mr Dreyfus's media statement of 7 October. To make it easy for you, I will start with the title: Brandis opinion shopping another sign of government dysfunction'. Mr Dreyfus uses some very, very colourful language. He says:

…that Attorney-General Senator George Brandis has been 'opinion shopping' for legal advice goes to the heart of concerns about the failure of Senator Brandis to work with Australia's second law officer …

And I will come in a moment to why that is not true. It goes on to say:

The job of the Solicitor-General is to provide legal advice to the government, to government ministers and to Heads of Department. Senator Brandis has clearly hobbled the ability of the Solicitor-General to do his job …

This is not true, and I will come to why that is in a moment. He goes on to say:

Senator Brandis' failure to consult the Solicitor-General breaks a century-long tradition of Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General working together on Commonwealth legal matters.

These are big grand statements from Mr Dreyfus. Finally, he goes on to say that the Attorney-General needs to explain:

…why he is not seeking the advice of the Solicitor-General on issues of public importance.…Senator Brandis has failed to consult the one person that he is expected to consult for legal advice.

This is not true—not true.

Today, Senator Brandis ended the week with a king hit against the Labor Party and its senators and their appallingly useless, futile efforts to brand Senator Brandis as a failure in his role as the chief legal officer of the nation. In contrast, Senator Brandis is an outstanding Attorney-General for this Commonwealth.

Let's get to the core of the issue. What is Mr Dreyfus's real view about opinion shopping? Do not ask me. Do not even ask the Labor senators on the other side. Let's ask Mr Dreyfus himself. There it is for the world to see on page 174 of the book by Professor Gabrielle Appleby, The role of the solicitor-general. You just have to go a little way down the page. For those of us that can read English, it is easy to see; it is crystal clear. It says:

Some former Attorneys-General indicated that they were willing to seek alternative legal opinions where they disagreed with the Solicitor-General's advice …

They 'were' willing to seek other advice—what Mr Dreyfus would call 'opinion shopping'. Then it says:

Similarly, Mark Dreyfus indicated that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government … Nonetheless, he—

Mr Dreyfus—

would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues—

Mr Dreyfus says—

"Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again …"

Mr Dreyfus is accusing Senator Brandis of things he has done himself in the past and that he believes are totally respectable and credible. The idea that there should not be contestability around important legal advice that governs the affairs of the Commonwealth is just ridiculous. (Time Expired)