Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the explanatory statement on the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 tabled by the Attorney-General, which states, 'The Attorney-General has consulted the Solicitor-General.' The Solicitor-General has said, 'I wasn't consulted about the direction.' Is the Solicitor-General correct?

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

Senator Collins, I have addressed this issue both in responses in this chamber and in a detailed submission that I gave to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I consulted the Solicitor-General about the matter at a meeting in my office on 30 November 2015. I invited the Solicitor-General to put his ideas in writing, which he did, and I considered those as well. When I made the direction, I was advised by my department that the requirements of section 17 of the Legislation Act had been satisfied. Might I remind you, Senator Collins, that section 17 of the Legislation Act provides:

(1) Before a legislative instrument is made, the rule-maker must be satisfied that there has been undertaken any consultation that is:

(a) considered by the rule-maker to be appropriate; and

(b) reasonably practicable to undertake.

Such consultation was undertaken.

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

Senator Collins, a supplementary question?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I refer to the Attorney-General's answer in question time on 12 September in which he claimed that the Solicitor-General was consulted on the direction 'during the course of a meeting in my office on 30 November 2015'. Does the Attorney-General stand by that statement?

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

Obviously I do, Senator, and I have just repeated it. That is my position.

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

Senator Collins, a final supplementary question?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. To reinforce the point, I refer to the Solicitor-General's submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which states, 'At no time'—I repeat: 'at no time'—'during that meeting did the Attorney-General indicate that he was considering issuing a legal binding direction.' Given the Solicitor-General has directly contradicted the Attorney-General's statements, will the Attorney-General now concede he has misled the Senate?

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

Thank you, Senator Collins. I have read the Solicitor-General's statement very carefully and I have read the passage from which you have quoted. Senator Collins, I agree with what the Solicitor-General says. It is the case that, to quote him:

… at no time at that meeting did the Attorney-General indicate that he was considering issuing either a legally binding direction concerning the performance of the functions of the Solicitor-General or a requirement that a Commonwealth person or body could only approach the Solicitor-General for advice after receiving the Attorney-General's advance approval.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I agree with that statement, Senator Wong, because at the time of that meeting I was seeking Mr Gleeson's views about the matter. I had formed no view whatever as to what course I would take. That is a view I formed subsequent to the meeting.