James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, here we are again: day 4 of the most wet-lettuce opposition Senate attack I have seen in my short career and, I am sure, for many years before that in this place. It is day 4 of avoiding all major policy issues that this country faces. It is day 4 of pursuing the Attorney-General in what some may characterise—I would say fairly—as an obsession. So I was most amused in Senate question time today to hear the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in fact imply that the opposite is the case and that the Attorney-General is obsessed with his shadow counterpart, Mr Dreyfus, the member for Higgins—sorry, I correct myself: the member for Isaacs. He is just a resident of Higgins. The member for Isaacs is in fact, I think on the evidence, obsessed with the Attorney-General, not the reverse, and the entire opposition seems to be affected by and to share this obsession, because in almost every question on every day this week, and with every motion to take note of answers after question time this week, we have dwelt yet again on this issue of the Solicitor-General. This might have been a reasonable issue to pursue for one day, or even two if they were really passionate about it and really interested in the intricacies of the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but to be continuing to talk about this issue, to the exclusion of almost all other issues—and, frankly, more meaty, weighty policy issues which affect the interests of their constituents—I think constitutes an obsession.

As Senator Brandis said, though, brownie points go to Senator Urquhart for taking up a policy issue in the last question of the week, the last question of question time today, the question of wind farms. I was saddened to hear, though, as a former fellow member of the Environment and Communications Committee, her lack of concern about herds in relation to wind farms. But I am sure that is not a reflection of her lack of concern for the environment and animals more generally.

In question time today, we had Senator O'Neill, senator for New South Wales, stand up and ask a question about the Solicitor-General. She could have asked, as my colleague Senator Duniam did, about counter-terrorism raids taking place in her home state. That might be of interest to her constituents. I suggest, if you ran an opinion poll, it would probably be of more concern than the Solicitor-General. We had Senator Farrell, senator for South Australia, asking about the Solicitor-General. I suspect his constituents are more interested in the fact that they had no power for 24 hours—that their power system entirely failed under a Labor government of some 14 years that he has had some hand in. But no; he would prefer to pursue the issue of the Solicitor-General. We had our new Senate colleague Senator Chisholm from Queensland ask a question about the Solicitor-General. I suspect, again, that his constituents might be more interested in the partnership with Singapore cemented this week, which Senator Macdonald asked about and which will be of tangible benefit and interest to his constituents, particularly in the north of Queensland, where a number of bases will be enhanced in a joint relationship with Singapore. We could have asked about that issue, but we did not.

This issue has been well ventilated and well explained. But I have to say I am pleased that we have gone into the fourth day of this issue, because it has unearthed a very timely publication, I must say, by Professor Appleby—and full congratulations to her and her publishers on getting such a timely publication out just very recently, to precede this debate. We heard in a media release from Mr Dreyfus on 7 October that it is a shocking practice to engage in what he describes as 'opinion shopping for legal advice'—that is, seeking alternative legal advice to that of the Solicitor-General. Without having delved into Mr Dreyfus's role as Attorney-General, I would have thought that it would be an entirely reasonable thing to rely on more than just one person for legal advice. The Solicitor-General is an eminent lawyer, but he is not God. His views on law are no doubt worth seeking, but not to the exclusion of all others. As it happens, it turns out it is not just the current Attorney-General who has that view and that belief; it is also a distinguished previous Attorney-General—a short-serving one, to take up Senator Gallacher's point, but an Attorney-General nonetheless: Mr Dreyfus, who himself said in an interview with Professor Appleby in her recently published book:

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. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that.

Well, I suggest that Mr Dreyfus has a little bit more to learn in his legal career, and I hope we see evidence of that soon.