Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Brandis:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, to uphold the standards expected of the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth, by her undermining of public confidence in the courts and inappropriate interference in litigation.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not in question time today because I was at the High Court representing the Leader of the Opposition at the swearing in of the 49th justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Gageler. The swearing in was attended by all of the members of the High Court, by three former chief justices and four other retired justices, and by the chief justices of almost every Australian jurisdiction.

Mr Gageler, or Justice Gageler, as he now is, had until his appointment to the High Court—an appointment, I interpolate to say, welcomed by the opposition—occupied the office of Commonwealth Solicitor-General, known colloquially as the second law officer of the Commonwealth. The welcoming speech for Mr Gageler was given by the Attorney-General, Ms Roxon, the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The majesty of that ceremony, when the second law officer of the Commonwealth was welcomed to the High Court by the first law officer of the Commonwealth, reminded me of just how important it is that those who occupy positions of custodianship of our legal system—the chief justices, the justices of our superior courts, the first law officer of the Commonwealth and the second law officer of the Commonwealth—discharge their duties so as to enhance the dignity of and protect the public respect for those institutions.

Of the various officers I have mentioned, the office of the Attorney-General is of course a little different, because under our Constitution it must be occupied by a member of parliament. It is in that limited sense a political office. But it is not an office like that of any other cabinet minister. Because, unlike any other cabinet minister, the Commonwealth Attorney-General shares with the Chief Justice and shares with the Solicitor-General—shares with those who are the pillars of our legal system—an obligation to protect the reputation of that legal system, to enhance public respect for it, and to defend it when it is attacked; to show by his or her conduct that he or she can be trusted in the discharge of that most important constitutional function.

That is a task which great Liberal attorneys-general—such as, for instance, Bob Ellicott, Tom Hughes, Sir Garfield Barwick, Daryl Williams, Philip Ruddock or Sir Nigel Bowen—have never failed to understand. But I am sorry to say that it is a task which the current occupant of that office entirely fails to grasp.

I like Nicola Roxon personally. I had a perfectly pleasant exchange with her in the High Court not an hour ago. But the fact is—I say this with regret—that, unlike her predecessor the Hon. Robert McClelland, who never embarrassed himself in the office, the behaviour of the current Attorney-General, in relation to proceedings brought by Mr James Ashby against the Commonwealth and against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has fallen below the high standards demanded by that office.

And if you do not believe me, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, then believe the judge, Justice Rares, of the Federal Court of Australia, who has the conduct of those proceedings, who was moved to say last Thursday something that I am sure has never before been said by any judge against any Commonwealth Attorney-General. Referring to the fact that Ms Roxon had facilitated favourable treatment of Mr Slipper by protecting him from media attention upon his arrival at court last week Justice Rares said, 'This undermines public confidence in the courts.'

What a terrible, terrible indictment, for a Commonwealth Attorney-General to be reprimanded by a justice of the Federal Court that her conduct ran the risk of undermining public confidence in the courts. Throughout the history of the Ashby and Slipper litigation I am afraid to say that Ms Roxon has been guilty of a litany of improper conduct and errors of judgement which show that she just does not understand her constitutional obligation to be a custodian—a pillar, a safeguard—of the impartiality and integrity of the courts.

First of all, when Mr Ashby commenced his proceedings, on 15 June Ms Roxon attacked him personally. She attacked his motives. She suggested that the litigation were Liberal and National Party shenanigans. Meanwhile, she stood idly by when her senior ministerial colleagues made claims as absurd as those of Senator Bob Carr, that Mr Ashby was more rehearsed than a kabuki actor, when Mr Craig Emerson attacked Mr Ashby and when Mr Anthony Albanese, never known for his common sense, said that this was the Australian Watergate. And what did the Commonwealth Attorney-General do? She fell silent while those attacks on a gay man claiming to have been sexually harassed, were allowed to be made.

She was asked about this by Barry Cassidy on Insiders on Sunday, by the way, now that the case has settled, and this was what she had to say:

… there is still a live matter before the court between Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby. So we do have to be careful in commentary that we want to provide about any detail of that case that’s still before the court.

It is all very well to have been alive to those principles on 7 October, but she was not alive to them on 15 June, when she had said the very things that, on Sunday morning, she said it was improper to say.

Then the case against the Commonwealth was settled, and Ms Roxon issued a press release on 28 September. She said that it was settled because it would have been a lawyers' picnic and that one had to be mindful of the Commonwealth's obligations to taxpayers to achieve the most cost-effective outcomes for legal proceedings, heedless of the fact that the Commonwealth Legal Services' directions, which she administers, prescribe in unambiguous terms that merely to save costs is not, of itself, a proper reason for the Commonwealth to settle a case. So Ms Roxon either misapplied her own guidelines or she misrepresented the Commonwealth's motive in settling the case.

She continued, by the way, to maintain that it was vexatious. And then, as I mentioned before, it was revealed, to give her credit where it is due, Ms Roxon apologised to the court—she was forced, I daresay to apologise to the court—for she facilitated preferential treatment to Mr Slipper so as to convey to public the idea that Mr Slipper was being looked after by the Commonwealth of Australia, given special, privileged access to the private entrance to the court when poor Mr Ashby, the individual litigant with the courage to take on the entire political establishment of the country, was left to fend for himself in a forest of journalists at the front door. What sort of message does that send to litigants who want to commence proceedings—particularly proceedings against powerful institutions like governments or big corporations—that if you have a big institution standing behind you on this Attorney-General's watch you will get favourable treatment?

Finally, as is revealed by Dennis and Leo Shanahan in their stories in the Australian this morning, there remains an unresolved question about Ms Roxon's interference in the conduct of the case by the Commonwealth's counsel, Mr Julian Burnside QC. The opposition takes the unusual step of putting down an MPI notice like this for one simple reason: to make the point that whoever the occupant of the office of Commonwealth Attorney-General is must be impartial, must not undermine the courts. I am sad to say that the current occupant of that office does not conduct herself by those— (Time expired)

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does appear as if the MPI has been put down by the opposition for one simple reason, as Senator Brandis said. It does appear that that simple reason is to give an opportunity for Senator Brandis to grandstand in the Senate for 10 minutes.

Senator Brandis has spoken in the debate. He has almost exploded with indignation, pomposity and outrage. But I think it might be helpful to have a close look at the facts and how the Attorney-General has dealt with the issues that have been raised this afternoon by Senator Brandis.

It is commonplace and entirely appropriate for the Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, to be regularly briefed and consulted by Commonwealth legal teams on legal cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. There are any number of cases—as Senator Brandis would know—where this has occurred. In fact, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth chairs a significant legal issues meeting that is held quarterly which focuses on legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. I am sure even Senator Brandis, were he to become Attorney-General, would also engage in such processes. It makes sense, as happens in so many other matters, that in the Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper matter, for the Attorney-General to have discussions with the government's legal team. I would have thought that it would be more remarkable, frankly, if she did not.

You would appreciate, Madam Acting Deputy President, as I know Senator Brandis and members of the opposition do, that I am not a lawyer. But I am aware that the government has entered into a deed with Mr Ashby and has settled his case with the Commonwealth. There remains an outstanding legal proceeding between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. While mediation was held last week, that mediation was unable to settle the matter between those two parties. But as far as the matter between Mr Ashby and the Commonwealth is concerned, that matter was settled and the terms of the settlement are public. Those terms include: an express provision that the Commonwealth does not accept liability; a $50,000 payment to Mr Ashby; and an agreement to offer training and information to parliamentarians and parliamentarians' staff about sexual harassment and associated complaints. If I can find that information out, so can Senator Brandis. This settlement certainly appears to be consistent with all Commonwealth obligations, responsibilities and legal advice. And it is a fact that the settlement was made in accordance with legal advice from senior counsel. It is a fact that the settlement, as I understand it, was made on the basis of advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. Like Senator Brandis, I did read closely the Attorney-General's statement of 28 September. The Attorney-General said:

The Commonwealth has been mindful of its obligations to taxpayers to achieve the most cost-effective outcomes for legal proceedings amongst other considerations.

The Attorney-General also made it clear—and Senator Brandis quoted these words—that the case was 'a lawyer's picnic that could have extended well into the year' That does seem pretty accurate to me given again that it has been reported that the costs of the litigation to date are $730,000 with, as we are told, more bills to come. I think that in my time as a Senator I have tried to be quite meticulous and consistent about not raising matters that are before a court or are operational matters with the Australian Federal Police and it is not a practice—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, you were heard in silence.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that I intend to depart from in this debate. That does not mean that I do not have views on such matters, of course I do. But, as I said, in my time in the Senate I have tried to adopt a consistent approach on this and do not intend to change the habits of a lifetime today.

I do note, of course, that some have criticised the Attorney-General for public comments that she has made. We have heard that. But it seems to me that it would be more remarkable if the Attorney-General did not provide information about the approach that the Commonwealth has taken before the court. This is a matter where the Commonwealth was being sued by Mr Ashby and, in defending the complaint, the Commonwealth filed an application and made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. The Attorney-General explained the application that the Commonwealth made in the court. It is true that the matter was settled last week—both Mr Ashby's complaint against the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's complaint against the process. But there is a remaining matter, as we all know. That is between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. As I have said before, it would be prudent and proper not to canvass that matter while it is before the court.

The Attorney-General has been, as you have heard in this debate, criticised in relation to access to the court by Mr Slipper's Comcar for which the Attorney-General's office made a request on one occasion. That is true. The Attorney-General's office was informed, as I understand it, by the building management that this should not have occurred, so the Attorney-General apologised to the building manager. So a mistake was made. In the scheme of things I think it was a comparatively minor mistake but, appropriately, an apology was made. Surely Senator Brandis knows that we all make mistakes. Even someone as eminent as Senator Brandis makes mistakes—one or two of them perhaps of a more serious nature than what car goes into what car park. Did, for example, Senator Brandis apologise when he made a phone call to the New South Wales Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Gallacher, regarding investigations into the member for Dobell? It was reported at the time—I do not know whether it is accurate or not; it has never been corrected by Senator Brandis or anyone else—that, as a result of Senator Brandis's call, the New South Wales police minister relayed the matter onto the New South Wales Police Commissioner. I personally believe—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: what was said at the time was by the New South Wales Police Commissioner. That statement that has just been made by Senator Faulkner was incorrect. Senator Faulkner should withdraw that false claim.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order, Senator Brandis.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that what Senator Brandis did in relation to that matter was a mistake. So did many other people. I thought personally that a shadow Attorney-General should know better. But I did not come into the Senate chamber, puff myself up with all the righteous indignation in the world and excoriate Senator Brandis—far from it. I did not open the door of my glass house and proceed to hurl stones at my opponents. I just say to Senator Brandis: you have to be careful about these things, because I think you have to be careful not to diminish yourself. I have said before that Senator Brandis likes Nicola Roxon. Well, I like Senator Brandis, and I also acknowledge and have acknowledged in the past that he is an able parliamentarian. But, just like attorneys-general, shadow attorneys-general need to adopt high standards.

As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is also an ongoing court proceeding, and not only the one between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. The Australian Federal Police announced on 19 July—and I read from its press release—that it had received and accepted a referral to investigate allegations of fraud against Mr Slipper and that it had forwarded certain material to the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consultation and possible further action. So there is more than one issue and more than one matter about which judgements will be made in the future, and that is as it should be.

Let me make one final point in the short amount of time I have available to me. Many years ago in this chamber I was one who used all the mechanisms that the Senate had available to me to hold a Senate Presiding Officer—the then Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Colston—to account. At no stage did I seek or receive the views of my colleagues in the House of Representatives about the Senator Colston matter. Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When I came down to the chamber to hear Senator Brandis's contribution on this debate, there was a debate taking place in the House of Representatives about whether Mr Slipper should remain as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and his future is a matter for the House of Representatives. It is not a matter for the Senate.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The position of Attorney-General is as the first officer of the Commonwealth. It is effectively the highest law office in Australia. As quoted by Ross Ray QC, president of the Law Council of Australia, to the International Bar Association conference in 2008:

… the Attorney-General has traditionally been seen as having a special independent public interest responsibility within government; that is, as distinct from a responsibility to protect the Government's interests.

Tasked with these responsibilities, the person appointed by the government to this role must conduct themselves with the utmost decency and be beyond reproach.

Successive attorneys-general, regardless of their political affiliation, have recognised that although frequently involved in the rough and tumble of politics, the integrity of the role of Attorney-General should never be compromised. Why? Because they recognised that as the Attorney-General they were the chief defender of the integrity of the Australian court system.

Nicola Roxon is currently Australia's Attorney-General. Attorney-General Roxon's behaviour in relation to what has now become known as the Slipper case and, in particular, given her political interference in the case following the recent disclosure of the raft of crude and disgusting text messages sent by Mr Slipper, confirms for all Australians that Ms Roxon is fundamentally failing in the discharge of her role as the Commonwealth's No. 1 law officer.

Her behaviour also highlights the gross hypocrisy of the Labor Left when it comes to accusations of alleged misogynist behaviour. The position now conveniently taken by Attorney-General Roxon in relation to the Slipper case that she cannot comment on it because it is still before the courts—even though when it suited her political purpose she was more than happy to do that—highlights the sheer hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the double standards that it applies when measuring its own members' behaviour against alleged behaviour by members of the coalition and others.

But as Labor frontbencher, Jason Clare, has said:

Politicians are going to be judged on what they say and do …

And as Attorney-General Roxon has also confirmed, 'This judgement is merely part of politics'.

I say this to Ms Roxon, who is very good at handing out judgement when the political situation suits her: judge not lest ye be judged yourself. This is, of course, the woman who as far back as 2002 said in relation to the then Deputy Speaker, Ian Causley, after he made an allegedly offensive remark to her:

Women in many workplaces around Australia have to put up with this sort of behaviour, I'm in a position to do something about it by publicising it - I don't think it is right to just let it go all the time.

And yet when confronted in black and white, as she has been, with the crude and grotesque text messages sent by Mr Slipper to Mr Ashby commenting disparagingly on women, Attorney-General Roxon's silence is deafening.

This is despite saying at a press conference on 15 June 2012 that in relation to the Slipper case:

I think it's unrealistic given the public interest in this matter that there will not be commentary. And the art, if you like, from my perspective, is that we do that in an appropriate way.

Attorney-General Roxon set her own standard in relation to commenting on these matters:

Australians are now reading some of the most vulgar and demeaning utterances when it comes to women that I have ever seen. And again the silence from those on the Left of politics is utterly deafening, as is the silence now coming from Australia's Attorney-General. Attorney-General Roxon needs to understand that you cannot have it both ways: you are either appalled by this type of behaviour or you are not. As Attorney-General you do not get to pick the comments that you comment on when it suits you politically. As Attorney-General, Ms Roxon chose in the Ashby case to attack Mr Ashby when the matter was before the courts; and yet in relation to the revelation of the text messages sent by Mr Slipper, which are now on the public record, she now chooses in her role as Attorney-General to be silent. Australia's Attorney-General has no position.

As evidence of Attorney-General Roxon's failure to discharge properly the role of Commonwealth Attorney-General, she has now been forced to apologise to the Federal Court and to the Australian people for giving special treatment to Mr Slipper—treatment that no other Australian is afforded—by allowing him to enter the Federal Court through a back door to avoid media scrutiny. This was a move confirmed by Attorney-General Roxon's office and criticised by the Federal Court judge, Steven Rares, as undermining public confidence in the Australian court system. Justice Rares, according to a newspaper report, said that it was important that:

… justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Attorney-General Roxon's decision to give preferential treatment to Mr Slipper shows a complete contempt for her role as the Commonwealth Attorney-General, and a failure to appreciate that the role has a special independent public interest responsibility within government—that is, as distinct from a responsibility to protect the government's interests.

What was Attorney-General Roxon's response to the criticism of Federal Court Judge Rares? The response was this: 'My decision was inadvertent'. How does the Commonwealth Attorney-General make a decision that is 'inadvertent'? The fact is that the Attorney-General does not. In this case the Attorney-General made a very deliberate decision, and it was made for nothing more and nothing less than political purposes. Clearly, Ms Roxon, despite her role as Attorney-General, is more interested in protecting the government's interests in this case than in discharging her independent public interest responsibility.

Perhaps, however, the most offensive part of what has occurred in relation to Ms Roxon's role in the Slipper case is what is set out in the Australian newspaper today: that Attorney-General Nicola Roxon herself personally intervened in the sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper by briefing lawyers defending the Speaker whose misogynist and degrading attitudes to women have been exposed in the trove of sexually explicit texts. Based on these actions, whether Attorney-General Roxon understands the responsibilities of her role and is fit to hold the role of the first law officer of the Commonwealth must surely now come into question.

Ms Roxon has recently said in relation to opposition leader Mr Abbott:

It is fair game for me or any other minister … to hold him to account for his public behaviour and his public comments.

But despite these words, as a leading woman on the Labor Left side of politics, Ms Roxon fails to hold Mr Slipper to account. Again, we all know why: because of the double standards that those on the Left side of politics apply when it comes to judging their own. Mr Slipper, as we know, is a creature of the Labor Party. The Labor Party owns Mr Slipper. Attorney-General Roxon and the Prime Minister—who, I note in the motion before the other place, has again failed to condemn the actions of Mr Slipper—should now come out and admit that Mr Slipper's views on women make his position as Speaker untenable.

This is something that the coalition has done. We have unequivocally condemned Mr Slipper's views on women and it is time for both Attorney-General Roxon and Prime Minister Gillard, and all other Labor women, to condemn them as well. The Australian public has the right to ask from Labor consistency on issues of principle. You cannot be ambidextrous. You cannot on one hand allege misogynist behaviour based on the flimsiest and most cooked-up premise, whilst at the same time refuse to condemn the vile and wholly repulsive texts that have been sent by the Speaker. Labor is merely political point-scoring and Attorney-General Roxon is using her role as the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia to score political points when it suits her. She is an embarrassment to the role of Attorney-General.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide some input into this matter of public importance as well, and in my brief contribution just make two points here. Firstly, I think that the coalition wants to conveniently forget the facts surrounding Minister Roxon's involvement in the statements last week and the settlement with Mr Ashby. Senator Faulkner outlined a number of those but I think what we need to also add is that the Commonwealth in this matter was being sued and was in fact defending that complaint. It filed an application and had made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and that there was an abuse of process. So the Commonwealth was actually involved in this matter.

It is not unusual that from time to time the Attorney-General would be seeking briefings about the Commonwealth's involvement in legal matters and cases. We have got the internationally famous tobacco litigation case and we have of course the chaplains case. There is also international whaling and the Malaysia agreement—the list goes on—where the Commonwealth is party to the action, and the Commonwealth and the minister involved, that is the Attorney-General, would receive briefings about that. That is her involvement. The Commonwealth was party to this matter before the court because they were being sued. The counterclaim was that we believed that it was an abuse of process.

There is one thing here that we sought to then do: to negotiate a settlement and resolve the area in which the Commonwealth was involved, and that is what was done. Already, as we know—and it is public knowledge—$750,000 in taxpayers' costs have been racked up in the pursuit of this matter and so at the end of the day and in the interests of a settlement, and the interests of the taxpayers' dollar, a settlement with Mr Ashby was made. That settlement, as agreed between the parties, was public. That settlement and the outcomes of the settlement have been made public and have been out there for the last week.

There is still another aspect of the matter that is ensuing between Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby and, as Senator Carr said today in question time, it is not a matter for debate in this chamber. It has never been a matter of debate before the parties because it is a matter before the court and therefore no further comment should be made about it.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's only a matter of debate on Lateline!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we want to go to the integrity of the position of the Attorney-General and if we want to go to the role that the Attorney-General plays when it comes to matters that may or may not potentially go before the courts, then what I need to say to the coalition is: you currently have a shadow minister in the role of the Attorney-General who also needs to look at his behaviour in the last 12 months. As Senator Faulkner said, if you want to sit inside your glasshouse and throw a stone, then you want to make sure it does not come back to hit you in the head.

This is a shadow Attorney-General who on 25 August last year according to the Daily Telegraph, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian, picked up the phone to his mate in New South Wales and said that he was going to write a letter because he had some information that ought to be used in the case with the member for Dobell. So last year we had Senator Brandis seeking to influence independent investigations by the New South Wales Police, by the New South Wales DPP.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are no proceedings underway!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He picked up the phone to his mate, the New South Wales Attorney-General, and said, 'I am going to write the New South Wales Police minister a letter. And not only that, I have actually got documents that you might be interested in. Not only am I not going to get involved in this, I am actually going to furnish evidence and you might want to have a look at it.'

And so on one hand you cannot stand here and condemn Nicola Roxon for being involved in settling a case, which is the right and proper role to undertake when the Commonwealth is before the courts, while you, as a shadow Attorney-General with the potential to be an Attorney-General, hand over documents, encouraging your mates—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, handing documents to the police.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

your Liberal mates in New South Wales, to get involved in a case that was due to go before the courts. That is the peak of hypocrisy, Senator Brandis.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been considerable misunderstanding, even ignorance, of proper process exhibited by those who have contributed to this debate from that side of the chamber and I want to touch a number of those matters. First of all, it is important to remember that the Attorney-General, not just of the Commonwealth but of any jurisdiction, holds a particular place within the legal system. The Attorney-General holds a place which is not akin to any other role played by any other minister in a government. The Attorney-General is described as the first law officer of a jurisdiction and has special responsibilities, usually as an officer of the chief court of a jurisdiction, towards the good functioning of the court system of that particular jurisdiction.

No doubt Ms Roxon is a registered or enrolled legal practitioner of the High Court of Australia, as indeed many other legal practitioners in this chamber would be, notwithstanding that they are now politicians, and as such they have obligations towards the good functioning of the legal system. Particularly as Attorney-General, Ms Roxon has responsibilities towards the functioning of that system, but in what she had to say on litigation involving the Commonwealth she went far beyond and outside the role that she has as a protector of that system. The comments she has made about the litigation initiated by Mr Ashby were quite inappropriate, given the circumstances of that litigation and her obligation towards the court system. She described his case as 'vexatious' and an 'abuse of process' which had an 'ulterior motive'. She said:

The Commonwealth strongly believes that this process has been one which is really for an ulterior purpose, not for the purposes of an ordinary workplace complaint.

And, as Senator Brandis has pointed out, when other members of the government made even more injudicious remarks about this litigation—such as the remarks of Senator Carr that have been referred to—as chief officer responsible for defending the court within the parliament Ms Roxon fell silent and refused to defend the proper processes and to ask her colleagues to refrain from commenting on these matters.

Putting to one side for the moment the fact that these are matters involving allegations of sexual harassment—and we have had a lot of lecturing from those opposite about the importance of respecting people's right to pursue matters of sexual harassment in appropriate circumstances—I want to contrast those comments by the Attorney-General with the obligations of the government and particularly the Attorney-General under the government's own guidelines for litigation. These are the Legal Services Directions, which govern the way in which the Commonwealth acts as a party to litigation. Those obligations are quite clear. They indicate, for example, that in the case of major claims—that is, claims above $25,000—in which the Commonwealth is involved, they are to be settled only if:

… written advice is received from the Australian Government Solicitor or other legal adviser external to the agency that the settlement is in accordance with legal principle and practice.

What is legal principle and practice? It is set out in the same Legal Services Directions, in appendix C, item 2, where it says:

Monetary claims covered by this policy are to be settled in accordance with legal principle and practice, whatever the amount of the claim or proposed settlement. A settlement on the basis of legal principle and practice requires the existence of at least a meaningful prospect of liability being established.

And it goes on to say:

In particular, settlement is not to be effected merely because of the cost of defending what is clearly a spurious claim.

How is that obligation on Ms Roxon, as the Attorney-General, not to settle matters which are spurious in nature consistent with her claims made earlier in the litigation that the claim brought by Mr Ashby was 'vexatious', an 'abuse of process', had an 'ulterior motive' and was executed with the 'clear intent of publicising it before it was filed'? You cannot have it both ways: a matter which is so flawed and so unworthy of consideration and then the government proceeds to put $50,000 of taxpayers' money into ending the litigation against the Commonwealth. Under the Legal Services Directions that govern the actions of the Commonwealth as a litigant, it was not open to Ms Roxon to settle this matter if it was indeed without merit. It clearly must have had merit for the claim to be settled in that way. There is no other interpretation of what has been done consistent with the Legal Services Directions.

If the government maintain otherwise, let them table the advice of respect to this matter. Why don't we see the advice? The matter has been settled; we do not need to worry about interfering with litigation. Let us see what the advice actually has to say. We have meetings of the estimates committees next week where I am sure that opportunity could be furnished by the government if they wished to do so.

The fact is this has been politicised from day one. This has been handled in a way most designed to defend this government's shaky hold on power by defending its special relationship with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Slipper, even to the point of allowing the judgement of individual members of the government to be clouded to the extent that a judge of the Federal Court had to say the other day that the behaviour of the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Commonwealth, 'undermines public confidence in the courts'. I repeat: 'undermines public confidence in the courts'.

This has been yet another indication of how this Attorney-General has failed to understand her obligations towards the administration of justice in this country. She was quite prepared to make public prejudicial comment repeatedly when this litigation was at an early stage. But now when she has been humiliatingly forced to acknowledge that a settlement of $50,000 has been made towards Mr Ashby on that part of the litigation that she was directly involved with, she says that she does not wish to make further comment because the matter is before the courts. It was before the courts before when she said it was vexatious and an abuse of process and had an ulterior motive. It was before the courts then but there was nothing that the Attorney-General saw fit to do to prevent that kind of prejudicial comment going forward.

The comment of Senator Carr that 'this Ashby seems more rehearsed than a kabuki actor' is highly prejudicial, is highly inappropriate. Senator Carr went on to say: 'In Australia and around the world there are a lot more serious cases of infringement of human rights than this.'

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a thing to say about sexual harassment.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. How often has this government come into this place and the other place and lectured us about the importance of protecting people in workplaces from exposure to sexual harassment? How often has that been a theme hit by this government? Apparently a person's right to be free of sexual harassment in a workplace does not extend to people who try to enforce that right who might at the same time be undermining the Labor government's hold on power. That is what it amounts to: the right is compromised if you happen to be an enemy of the state or an enemy of the Labor government. That is extremely unfortunate.

When the Attorney-General entered the parliament in 1998, in her maiden speech she said:

We must not weaken the system.

By that she meant the legal system.

We must not weaken the system to the extent that we leave the powerful to run roughshod over others or, worse, resort to violence and intimidation to get their way. I am committed in the next 26 years to further strengthening our country's institutions.

This week and last week she has not strengthened them, she has weakened them. That is the sort of thing than anyone would be held to account for but particularly the Attorney-General of Australia.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this MPI debate. Senator Brandis has stood here today claiming that the Attorney-General has undermined public confidence in the courts and has inappropriately interfered in litigation. This is a constant complaint from Senator Brandis. He has even complained that the Attorney-General successfully defended plain-packaging legislation when various tobacco companies took the Commonwealth to the High Court. How outrageous that the Attorney-General would defend the Commonwealth against big tobacco giants and their litigation strategy!

Senator Brandis continues to berate the Attorney-General for successfully defending this country's laws. These incredible claims come from the shadow Attorney-General, who has proven again and again that he cannot stop himself from inappropriately interfering in legislative matters in states other than those he has been elected to represent. What he does not mention in his MPI is that he tried to intervene in independent police matters earlier this year when he called the New South Wales Liberal police minister to try and force a police investigation. Senator Brandis sought to influence independent investigations by the New South Wales Police and the New South Wales DPP.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is completely fallacious.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection because the facts are well known. He made phone calls to the New South Wales Attorney-General and the New South Wales police minister regarding investigations. The then New South Wales police minister went on to relay that call to the New South Wales Police Commissioner. He did not allow independent police investigations to proceed and in fact sought to influence those investigations because they involved a political opponent.

This year he sought again to interfere in the police investigation process, on this occasion referring matters relating to Australia Day to the Federal Police. He provided this letter to the media and alleged a cover-up. The Federal Police later concluded: 'The available evidence does not support the existence of any criminal offences.'

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The matter of public importance before the Senate is about the conduct of the Attorney-General, Ms Roxon. Much as Senator Feeney might want to turn this around to make it a commentary on Senator Brandis, it is not the subject matter of the matter of public importance and he should confine his remarks to Ms Roxon's behaviour.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue, Senator Feeney, and please ensure that your comments refer to the question.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may address you on the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I make the point that in these debates it is customary that the Senate allows a reasonable amount of latitude so that it can engender the political discourse that these debates are designed to engender. Above and beyond that, I have been speaking now for some 2½ minutes and in those 2½ minutes I have been directly relevant to the question, which is the debate around the conduct of the Attorney-General and the person who calls that conduct into account.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no point of order and I look forward to you continuing to make reference to the question before us.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The Federal Police later concluded that the available evidence did not support the evidence of any criminal offences. And all of this from someone who aspires to be Attorney-General. Can you imagine an Attorney-General as reckless as this senator? Think of when he compared the Greens and the Nazi party. On 29 October 2003 he said:

I intend to continue to call to the attention of the Australian people the extremely alarming, frightening similarities between the methods employed by contemporary green politics and the methods and the values of the Nazis.

And he made outrageous comments regarding the Prime Minister on 27 January 2010 when he said:

I think Julia Gillard who … has chosen not to be a parent … shows that she just doesn't understand the way parents think about their children when they reach a particular age.

The actions of this would-be Attorney-General I am afraid speak far louder than words.

Today we see that the shadow Attorney-General does not believe that the Attorney-General should be involved—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the Attorney-General?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your interjection was magnificently timed, Senator. Thank you.

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, I urge you to deal with this disorderly conduct. Today we see that the shadow Attorney-General does not believe that the Attorney-General should be involved in being briefed on legal proceedings. That is right. We have heard from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General should not speak to government engaged solicitors. What errant nonsense! It is therefore clear that he would not want to undertake a large part of the Attorney-General's workload should he ever be successfully appointed to that position. As the first law officer, it is perfectly normal for the Attorney-General to be regularly briefed and consulted by government legal teams on significant cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. Of course, when one sets it out in that way it seems blindingly obvious; but, alas, not to those opposite. Briefings have occurred in the past on everything from whaling to the chaplains case through to immigration matters, the Federal Magistrates case and, of course, in more recent times, the tobacco litigation.

The Attorney-General also personally chairs a quarterly significant legal issues meeting, which discusses the legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. All of this is natural and all of this is, of course, longstanding custom and practice. Is Senator Brandis really saying today that, if he were Attorney-General, he would not regularly receive briefings and want to be consulted on significant legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party? Is he saying that he would not perform one of the key roles of the job to which he aspires?

In considering the remarks that have been made earlier in this debate concerning the Slipper-Ashby settlement, I will be short. I will be short in relation to the issue of the legal case of Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby for obvious reasons. This government has been mindful of its obligations to the court to use judicial resources appropriately and its obligations to taxpayers to minimise costs by trying to achieve settlement. Settlements are not about who is right and who is wrong; they are about bringing matters to a speedy conclusion, which is what the Commonwealth has now achieved. This is something that I believe is well understood by the shadow Attorney-General. But, of course, nonetheless he does not resist the temptation to try and score a political point.

The matter between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper continues before the Federal Court. The judge has reserved his decision in the matter of Mr Slipper's application alleging that the matter is an abuse of process. In considering the text messages that have received so much coverage today and in recent days, let it simply be said that I and, I believe, all of us would condemn these comments. We condemn sexism wherever it resides. But, again, I should note that these matters are currently before the courts. I do not believe it is appropriate—and those opposite should support me in this—for a political debate to be conducted while this matter is currently before the Federal Court of Australia. This Commonwealth takes sexual harassment very seriously. While our settlement does not admit liability, the government has agreed to establish specific training for members and senators in relation to issues of sexual harassment as well as to staff on how to deal with any such issues.

Senator Brandis has said that it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General to provide an explanation about the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court. It is actually completely appropriate for the Attorney-General to provide a description of the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court—for example, which applications are being made and heard. Remember, it was the Commonwealth that was being sued and, in defending that complaint, filed an objection and made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. Those documents and the arguments are public documents on the court file. This is a particularly important point—public documents on the court file.

As of last Thursday, the Commonwealth had settled its dispute with Mr Ashby, both his complaint against the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's complaint about the process. It is therefore not the intention of the government to make further comments about the proceedings between the remaining two parties. What is fascinating about the MPI today is that the Attorney-General, who has been attacked for her involvement as part of the so-called handbag hit squad and attacked for not talking about policy, is in fact getting on with her job in an appropriate and conscientious way. Meanwhile, Senator Brandis wants to attack her for doing what her job requires. The coalition's position flip-flops between the Attorney-General talking about personality, not action.

Today in the Punch the Attorney-General talked about what the government has and will deliver for women and has contrasted that with what the Liberals failed to do in their 11 years in office. In doing this, the Attorney-General has been assuring that the debate goes past personality and rather looks at the policies and actions of politicians. Senator Brandis has clearly failed the action test when it comes to being an appropriate Attorney-General, and the only way he can deal with his failure is to try and finger-point. Let us not forget that it is a constant complaint from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General is doing her job. Think again to when he complained about the Attorney's role in successfully defending plain-packaging legislation. He aspires to one day take up the position of Attorney-General, but I ask: what will he do if he does? We know he will not defend the Commonwealth against multinational companies trying to dictate our laws. We know he will not take briefings about legal matters the Commonwealth is engaged in. But what he will do, as he has demonstrated, is intervene in independent police matters and try and force police investigations when they might pertain to those he judges to be his political opponents. The call for politicians to be judged not on personality but rather on actions is one that should be ringing in the ears of the shadow Attorney-General today.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has now expired.