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

I too rise to speak about this disallowance motion on the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016. As I said previously in this place, I think the inquiry that was conducted into this matter and the majority report shames all of us in this chamber. Despite what those opposite have now said, I think the facts are very simple. This inquiry was established by Labor and the Greens to king-hit the Attorney-General. Instead, they knocked out the Solicitor-General. After the Solicitor-General unexpectedly fessed up in the hearing that he had breached the caretaker conventions and had a secret conversation with the shadow Attorney-General—and very likely in the process, I believe, communicated privileged information to the shadow Attorney-General during an election campaign during the caretaker period—the Solicitor-General had no choice but to resign when he did. As a barrister, he must have known it was a breach of professional conduct and professional ethics to have an ex parte discussion and breach client privilege so egregiously. Consequently, as Solicitor-General, a key legal adviser to this government, it would be impossible for any future minister—either the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister or any other minister or even the Governor-General—to have confidence in him any more if he was so willing to breach his professional and ethical duties.

The shadow Attorney-General, a previous Attorney-General and a barrister himself, knew far better than to contact the Solicitor-General during caretaker period. The Solicitor-General certainly knew better than to take the shadow Attorney-General's call and divulge the detail about advice he had given, and his opinion on that advice he had given, the Attorney-General.

Any objective analysis of the Solicitor-General's testimony will find it absolutely riddled with contradictions and, quite frankly, highly unwarranted hubris. I am not surprised that he did not want to answer a single one of my questions on notice—and not a single question—but it was not unreasonable of me to ask these questions. There were 34—not 120—questions very carefully crafted by myself that were explicitly linked to his testimony and in particular his bombshell revelations that he had so secretly and carelessly breached caretaker conventions. I ask all in this place: since when has it been discretionary for any witness in any inquiry to flatly refuse to answer any of question of any senator in this place? The excuse he gave was that 'There were too many questions' or 'I sort of kind of answered some of them so, hey, I'm not going to answer any of your questions at all.' If I had been in his position and had breached caretaker conventions I do not think I would have wanted to answer any senator's questions on that. But that is not the point.

Those opposite, as well as the Labor and Greens members of this inquiry know full well that is not the point. They set up this inquiry, as I said, to king-hit the Attorney-General and instead they knocked out the Solicitor-General. That is their bag, their shame and their disgrace that they have done this.

So two issues should be of great concern to all in this place about the conduct of those opposite and of the Solicitor-General. First of all, as I have said, the contempt the Solicitor-General of this nation showed not just myself but to every senator in this place by refusing to answer any question on notice that flowed directly from the surprise testimony. I am sure none of the Greens or the Labor MPs would have had any idea that he was about to drop the bombshell that he did—that he had breached caretaker conventions and, I argue, had provided privileged information to the shadow Attorney-General. That is the first thing, but the second thing, which should be a great concern to all in this chamber, is the actions of those opposite on this committee. That the committee accepted the Solicitor-General's refusal to answer a single question on notice that flowed directly and very clearly from his bombshell evidence at that inquiry. The majority members' decision is a shocking precedent to set for all future Senate committee inquiries. What? Somebody does not care to give evidence because it is a little bit uncomfortable and so they just tell the committee, 'Na, I don't really feel like answering because it's going to make me look bad.' That is an appalling precedent for this place. As I said, I understand why the majority of committee members did not want these questions answered by the Solicitor-General clearly and that was to protect the shadow Attorney-General from further scrutiny and to protect the Solicitor-General.

Well, too late; it was too late when the shadow Attorney-General had that discussion with the Solicitor-General and when the Solicitor-General failed to disclose that conversation to the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department or to the Attorney-General himself. That horse had well and truly already bolted. It was too late when Labor and Green committee members failed to do any due diligence with the shadow Attorney-General about whether there might be any little surprises that the Solicitor-General may have for them in this inquiry.

The intention of this inquiry was also very clear when, at the beginning of the hearing with the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, the coalition members moved that it be heard in camera to preserve the dignity of both the Attorney-General and the Office of the Solicitor-General. Had we gone in camera, their intent of turning it into a political horse trial—pony show, whatever—would have failed.