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

I want to say a few words about the annual report of the Australian Government Solicitor. In particular, I wanted to refer to the appearance of the Australian Government Solicitor and officers of the Australian Government Solicitor before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee estimates hearing in the week before last when for quite a period of time I asked questions about the litigation brought against the member for Fisher, Mr Peter Slipper, by Mr James Ashby, a person who alleges with particularity to have been sexually harassed by the member for Fisher.

I should say that I took the trouble of writing to Mr Govey, the CEO of the Australian Government Solicitor, the week before estimates to indicate to him that I wanted officers of the AGS who had knowledge of the conduct of the litigation on behalf of the Commonwealth to be present because, as you know Mr Deputy President, the Commonwealth was a party to the litigation until it settled on 27 September. And an extraordinary thing happened: officers of the Australian Government Solicitor were present in the committee room. In particular, the senior legal officer with the principal conduct of the case, a man called Mr Damien O'Donovan, was present. The CEO of the Australian Government Solicitor, Mr Ian Govey, was present and at the table but, deliberately and advertently, for a period of more than two hours, the secretary of the department, Mr Roger Wilkins—plainly acting on instructions from the minister, the Attorney-General, Ms Roxon—refused to allow Mr Damien O'Donovan to respond to questions from the opposition, and effectively refused to allow Mr Govey, who was actually at the table, to respond to questions from the opposition.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

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

This was extraordinary, and as a former chair of that committee, my distinguished friend Senator Payne points out to me, that is extraordinary in her experience too. Plainly, the government was seeking to cover up something of which it was deeply ashamed, as well it might have been.

We reached the absurd position where I asked a series of questions of Mr Roger Wilkins, the secretary of the department, who had no idea what the answers were—nor would he have had reason to, not being responsible for the conduct of this litigation—and he had to beckon Mr Damien O'Donovan to the table so that Mr Damien O'Donovan could whisper in his ear and he could then relate to the committee what Mr O'Donovan, sitting in the committee room himself, and with all the answers in his possession, could have told us directly. It was a solemn farce and a disgrace to the process.

I am convinced that Mr Damien O'Donovan would not have risen to the relatively high office he holds in the Australian Government Solicitor unless he was a very good lawyer. And he would not have been put in charge of this litigation unless he was a very good litigator. And yet this litigation on behalf of the Commonwealth was conducted bizarrely. The only explanation is that it was conducted under political instructions by the Attorney-General who, as the evidence came out, micromanaged that litigation. And that is a disgrace and a very, very poor reflection upon her.

It was also revealed during evidence that no fewer than 17 solicitors in the Australian Government Solicitor were engaged in the litigation, and it was said—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

17!

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

Yes, 17, Senator Payne. It was said that only four of them were engaged full-time. A few days after the estimates hearing was completed, the committee received a clarifying letter from the Australian Government Solicitor to say that it was not actually 17, it was 21! Now, if there were any doubt that this case was conducted politically rather than appropriately according to appropriate model litigant guidelines, ask yourself this question, Mr Deputy President, which we, the opposition, have asked on notice: how many other sexual harassment suits has the Commonwealth responded to in the last several years? And in how many of those sexual harassment suits were 21 solicitors engaged, including four solicitors engaged so that was their principal work? This litigation was conducted politically by an Attorney-General who does not know how to behave properly. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the annual report of the Australian Government Solicitor and to echo the comments that have been made by Senator Brandis in relation to the conduct of this matter. As I indicated at estimates when Senator Brandis was questioning Mr Govey and Mr Wilkins in relation to this matter, I have never in my whole 20-year association with the Australian Government Solicitor witnessed something of this nature. To have 17, 18, 19, 20 lawyers involved in the case is absolutely exceptional and then to have the matter settled for a mere $50,000 deserves comment.

What was also very pertinent was when the Australian Government Solicitor read out the list of officers involved in this matter, it actually read like a who's who of the Australian Government Solicitor and the who's who of senior legal people in this country. They are very highly respected lawyers. It actually goes to show the extent of the advice that was provided in relation to this matter. It was exceptional. To see people like Robert Orr and Tom Howe, highly respected lawyers, and Simon Daly whom I have worked with and know and respect, being involved in this matter goes to show the extent of the advice that this government got, and they cannot say—

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

How vulnerable they felt—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They felt very vulnerable, thank you, Senator Brandis. I was most interested to see that some of the lawyers involved were in the mediation area. It would be very interesting to know when those lawyers actually provided that advice, Senator Brandis. I would also invite Mr Govey to respond to my request to lay to rest any criticisms by providing to the Senate committee with the timesheets so that we can look at the work that was done in this matter and see how much of that work was necessary and how much was not done for legal purposes but for political purposes. Most importantly, we could see at whose instigation it was worked on and whether the instructions actually came directly from the Attorney-General, just to see the involvement that Attorney-General Roxon had directly in this case.

During my time as a government lawyer, yes, we did have highly political cases. Yes, we did have instances where there was political involvement. But it was done through a particular process. It was done through the department and through the appropriate areas of the department. Those timesheets would actually show the direct involvement that the Attorney-General may have had in relation to how she managed this case in what was really a personal attack on Mr Ashby. Senator Brandis has canvassed various aspects of the conduct of this matter.

How can the Attorney-General argue that they had a case and it was necessary to engage a raft of lawyers to continue to fight this case when they knew back in May about the text messages? Even if they had not read substantially all of them, it would have been sufficient to tell them that they had legal problems. So, as Senator Brandis has correctly said, a lot of that legal advice went to canvass all options including political options and the legality of those political options to see how far they could continue to try to create as much political advantage as they could. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.