Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, made under the Judiciary Act 1903, be disallowed.

Today the Attorney-General has registered the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016. That is a direction that purports to have the effect of repealing the amendment to the Legal Services Directions 2005 made by the instrument that I am moving to disallow today.

After all of the blustering, posturing and lying, it has come to this. Australia's Attorney-General has reversed his own legal services direction which limited the role of the Solicitor-General to such an extent that it forced the former Solicitor-General, the well-respected Mr Justin Gleeson, to resign. This is the direction that the Attorney-General has been defending for months, arguing that he was simply bringing the Solicitor-General's procedures in line with the law that Mr Gleeson had asked for that it cause no trouble at all.

Just hours before the direction was set to be disallowed, Senator George Brandis has backed down and removed it himself to avoid embarrassment. This is extraordinary. We have seen the Attorney-General running around the chamber trying desperately to get the numbers to stop the committee inquiry into this issue. It is no wonder. If you look at the evidence before that committee and if you look at Mr Gleeson's evidence you will see that it does not paint this law officer in a good light. In fact, the committee inquiry really demonstrated that the first law officer of this land, Senator George Brandis, misled the Senate and engaged yet again in an attack on a statutory officer.

Senator Brandis's decision today—which he has done because he could not get the support of the Senate against this disallowance, let us be clear—is an embarrassment to Senator Brandis, but it shows us one thing clearly. It demonstrates one things very clearly: that this direction was only ever about getting rid of Mr Justin Gleeson. That is right. This Attorney-General changed the law to get to a senior statutory office holder whom he disliked. It is an extraordinary admission by the behaviour of the first law officer of the land.

However, I want to be clear with the Senate what it is I am proposing today. Notwithstanding the repeal instrument registered, I am proceeding to move this disallowance motion on the basis that it is the Senate protecting its rights to prevent the previous instrument being remade without the consent of the Senate. This approach is similar to examples from page 423 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. For example:

In June 2000 the Senate disallowed some regulations under the Customs Act which had already been deemed to be disallowed in the House of Representatives because of the expiration of the statutory time limit for resolving a notice of a disallowance motion given in the House. The purpose of this seemingly unnecessary action was to ensure that the regulations could not be remade without the consent of the Senate.

So I move the disallowance motion to protect and assert the rights of the Senate. But, given the additional legal services direction has been registered today, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.