Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this disallowance motion. Some may wonder why this is proceeding, since Senator Brandis, in a humiliating backdown about an hour before the original disallowance motion was to be debated, withdrew the legal services direction that has caused this entire dispute, because it became very clear to him that he was not going to be able to get it through. Nevertheless, Labor believe that it is important to put our views about this whole affair on the record, mostly because, in withdrawing his legal services direction, the Attorney-General said that he was in the process of appointing a new Solicitor-General—the Attorney's actions had, of course, resulted in the incumbent Solicitor-General resigning—and wanted to discuss this direction with the new Solicitor-General. Given it is still possible that we might see some kind of restriction on a Solicitor-General's independence in the future, we think it is important to get our views on the record.

I have spoken a number of times in this chamber about this very sorry affair between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and soon I will remind the Senate of the background to it and why it is that Labor had such concerns about this legal services direction. But before I do that, I think it is worth us reflecting for a little bit of time on the person who is central to this whole saga, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. This week, I think it is fair to say, has not been a good week even by the atrocious standards of this hapless Attorney-General. Earlier this week, in speaking about matters concerning the Attorney-General, I described him as one of the worst Attorneys-General Australia has ever seen. Within a matter of hours of my saying that, he had given us a whole series of more examples as to why he is Australia's worst Attorney-General. Not only is he Australia's worst Attorney-General, but he would appear to be Australia's worst political commentator on Sky News, given his behaviour this week, and he is certainly Australia's worst go-between with his own LNP colleagues back in Queensland.

This is the kind of week that the Attorney-General has had. A couple of days ago he was caught on film describing his own LNP state colleagues as 'very, very mediocre.' I can tell you, having served in the Queensland state parliament with a number of those people, that is one thing that the Attorney-General has said that I do agree with. In fact, I think he was probably being a little generous in calling them 'very, very mediocre,' which, I suppose, is exactly why they returned to the opposition benches in Queensland after only one hopeless and terrible term. Not only did Senator Brandis have this to say about the LNP in Queensland but also, within about an hour or so, one of his own federal colleagues the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice, was interviewed about this on Brisbane ABC Radio, and she invited the journalists to speak to the state LNP members of parliament and ask them what they thought of Senator Brandis' own performance. That is how well known it is, even within his own ranks, that he has become a massive liability for this government.

Senator Brandis, in those infamous comments, also talked about the likelihood that we would see some kind of demerger of the LNP in Queensland. Those of you who are not as familiar with Queensland political history as I am will know that the formation of the LNP in Queensland was the result of many years of internal bickering, and this was the way they were going to finally overcome things. Senator Brandis was an opponent of the formation of the LNP from day one, and it would appear that he is still an opponent of the LNP having been formed as a merged entity. But then Senator Canavan, the most senior Queensland National in this chamber, the next day contradicted Senator Brandis and actually supports the LNP, so we have division within the LNP in Queensland even on the fact of whether they should actually remain one party.

The Attorney-General's accident-prone nature is not reflected only in his administration of his own portfolio. He is, of course, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and this week we saw the complete lack of authority that he has as the Leader of the Government in the Senate when we saw that he was unable to get National Party senators, including three cabinet ministers, to support the Prime Minister's own gun laws. I cannot remember the last time I have heard of ministers in a serving government refusing to support government legislation. Once upon a time that would have seen ministers resign from cabinet, but this Prime Minister has so little authority over his cabinet—

Senator Nash interjecting—

Oh, one of them is speaking up. Unfortunately, she was not able to be with us when we were debating gun laws, but once upon a time she, along with her other colleagues, would have resigned from the cabinet, but the Prime Minister knows that he cannot make them do that, because he has no authority whatsoever.

Putting all this together, I think you have to agree that we do unfortunately have a hapless, accident prone, self-serving QC in charge of the administration of justice in this country. He has shown that he is a serial stuffer-upper and among the biggest stuffer-uppers in government that Australia has ever seen. It is no wonder that the Attorney-General's colleagues want to see him gone. Almost since I arrived in Canberra as a senator, Canberra has been rife with rumours that the Attorney-General was going to be moved on, that he was going to be reshuffled out of his portfolio, because he has become such a liability. Back in Queensland there is open discussion about who is going to take his Senate seat and where that Senate office will be moved to. It is absolutely no wonder.

Even this week some of his own colleagues in Canberra were very happy to talk to the media about what they thought about the Attorney-General. Here is what one of them said on the condition of anonymity:

Of course George has been such a shining example of good government.

Then he said:

London can't come soon enough.

That is of course a reference to the well-known speculation that Senator Brandis may well replace that other towering intellect from the Liberal Party Alexander Downer as Australia's High Commissioner to Britain. I never thought that you would see someone less qualified and less deserving of being Australia's representative in London than Alexander Downer, but it would appear that we are likely to be facing that soon. So my advice to the Australian cricket team is: 'Get over there and win the Ashes as quickly as you can, because you don't want Senator Brandis appearing there and condemning you with very bad luck.' That is the kind of man we are talking about.

I know we are getting ready for Christmas. Everyone is thinking about Christmas being not too far away. My own children have certainly started preparing their own lists of Christmas presents that they want to see from centre and even a few from Mum and Dad. It would appear, though, that Senator Brandis really is the gift that keeps on giving for the Labor Party. He gives us an early Christmas present every single time he stands on his feet. He cannot open his mouth or pick up a pen without stuffing something up. He has really just got to that point. But, sadly for the Australian people, while ever he remains the Attorney-General he is doing severe damage to our rule of law and to Australia's system of justice.

I have spoken on a number of occasions about the legal services direction and the Attorney-General's actions in that regard. I am not going to go through that in detail—I will refer those at home who are paying attention to my earlier speeches—other than to say that the inquiry that was conducted by the legal and constitutional affairs committee on this dispute came up with three conclusions. The first was that the Attorney-General's action in issuing a direction that constrained the independence of Australia's Solicitor-General was a massive interference with the independence of the Solicitor-General and a massive threat to the rule of law. A former Solicitor General, Dr Gavan Griffith, a very well-respected man, pointed out that he had never been required to obtain the Attorney-General's permission to provide legal advice when he was Solicitor-General. He described this legal services direction as bringing to mind 'a dog on a lead'. That is the last thing that you want to hear a Solicitor-General described as or see treated as, but unfortunately that was the consequence of this Attorney-General's direction. All the witnesses that we had appear in front of the inquiry pointed out that the direction was a massive threat to the rule of law in Australia.

The second point that came out of this inquiry was that the Attorney-General had clearly failed to consult the Solicitor-General as he was required to do by law. We had time after time the Attorney-General claiming to the contrary. He tended to rely on one particular meeting that he had on 30 November last year where he claimed to have consulted the Solicitor-General about this direction. Unfortunately for the Attorney-General, the meeting notes of that meeting were circulated to all of the other attendees and not one of them who attended that meeting said that this issue about a new legal services direction or restriction on the Solicitor-General was discussed at that meeting. So we are left with Senator Brandis and his political advisers being the only people who say that the issue was discussed, when every other independent witness, including Senator Brandis's own departmental secretary, effectively said that it was not discussed. It is a gross interference with the independence of the Solicitor-General. The Attorney-General did not consult the Solicitor-General as he was required to do.

But, even worse than that, the Attorney-General has repeatedly misled the Senate as to his behaviour. He has repeatedly told the Senate that he did consult the Solicitor-General. As I said, that has been proven very clearly not to be true. We know that this Attorney-General has form in misleading the Senate. He has done it before. He has been subject to a censure motion. He has no credibility whatsoever. Even the Prime Minister said that a minister who misleads the parliament has no choice but to resign. The clock is ticking. It might be that Attorney-General gets reshuffled out of that portfolio before he has the opportunity to resign, but he probably does still have another week or two to do the decent thing, hand in his resignation and let us get on with having an Attorney-General who can actually bring credit to the profession and to their department.