Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General's decision to wait three days to advise parliament that the Monis letter had not been provided to the Martin Place siege review. I ask: what sort of Attorney-General finds time to read bush poetry at Senate estimates but takes days to correct misleading evidence to the parliament on a matter of national security?

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

Thank you very much indeed, Senator Sterle. I like having questions from you, Senator Sterle, you are a rough diamond but a gentleman. Senator Sterle, this is the position as I tried to explain to one of your colleagues earlier in the week. On the Thursday of the first week of estimates certain evidence was given to Senate estimates, in particular by a deputy secretary of my department in relation to the so-called Monis letter. On the afternoon of Monday of the second week of estimates I was told by the secretary of my department that it appeared that there was doubt about the accuracy of that evidence, so I immediately asked him to conduct an urgent inquiry within the Attorney-General's Department to establish the facts. He came back to me 72 hours later, early on the Thursday afternoon, and told me that the inquiry that I had asked him to conduct had established to a certainty that the earlier evidence was wrong. I immediately corrected the evidence that had been given. I immediately corrected it by having a written correction actually hand-delivered to the secretariat so as to ensure that the secretariat had that correction in good time for opposition senators to ask me questions about it before the Senate estimates committee adjourned, and they did.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General confirm that since coming to government you have defended the rights of bigots, spent $15,000 on taxpayer-funded bookshelves, forced the communications minister to clean up your metadata mess, forced the foreign minister to clean up your Middle East muddle, bullied and interfered with the position of an independent statutory office holder, used Senate estimates to catch up on your reading and, most seriously, misled the parliament and the public about a matter of national security?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe that the last part of your question is in order, Senator Sterle, and I think it would be best if you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You have cast an aspersion on the minister. The other parts of your question are fine.

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

Good to hear that litany of abuse from you, Senator Sterle! And I know you do not mean it. Mr President, I will need your guidance, because I was actually going to respond to that part of the question which you ruled out of order. Am I at liberty to do that?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wish to respond to any part of the question that Senator Sterle asked you, you are at liberty to do so.

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

You have given me a lot of material to work with, Senator Sterle, but let me focus on the last, because that is far and away the most important thing you have said. The parliament was misled. The parliament was misled by the Deputy Secretary of my department on the Thursday of the first estimates committee and by me, inadvertently. And when the fact that incorrect evidence had been given to the Senate committee on the Thursday was confirmed, I immediately corrected the record, as did she.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Was the Attorney-General surprised to read in last Friday's paper the background from his colleagues about his 'litany of ministerial missteps' and that 'If a reshuffle is on later this year, the AG might find himself with even more time to read verse'? Or, given his performance, was it no surprise at all?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will allow the Attorney-General to answer what part of that question the Attorney-General feels he wishes to answer.

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

I read a lot of commentary in newspapers. Some of it I find very flattering; some of it I find unflattering. In that way I am no different from any other politician.