Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions asked by opposition senators today relating to the Solicitor-General.

We, on this side of the chamber, keep returning to the Attorney's evasions on this matter because they raise fundamental questions of integrity, and questions of integrity go to the issue of fitness to hold office. In particular, no more could this be said than when it comes to the question of the first law officer of the Commonwealth. Integrity, of course, goes broader than that, to the wider legal system, which is tarnished when the principal officer lets it down.

The law is a noble profession. Some would say, of course, that it is the oldest of professions—bar one. Lawyers are sometimes denigrated as a profession, and we know that is unwarranted. The legal fraternity understands very well that duplicity will undermine public trust in the law. The late John Mortimer, an eminent practitioner at the English bar and creator of perhaps the greatest fictional lawyer, Rumpole of the Bailey, reported these remarks by his father when he was urging him to pursue a legal career,

No brilliance is needed in the law. Nothing but common sense, and relatively clean fingernails … Learn a little law, won't you?

The young Mortimer explained his father's meaning in this way:

It was my father's way to offer the law to me—the great stone column of authority which has been dragged by an adulterous, careless, negligent and half-criminal humanity down the ages—as if it were a small mechanical toy which might occupy half an hour on a rainy afternoon.

Mortimer's point was very simple: the authority of law, the great stone column, is at risk if it is undermined by those who treat legal processes and the edifice of law as trifles to be manipulated for advantage. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening.

We have heard numerous evasions from the slippery and oleaginous advocates that we have here—and we have the chief law officer of this land, the great law lord of this land, Lord Brandis himself. The Attorney-General has usurped the Solicitor-General's capacity to provide independent legal advice—the senior offices of the Commonwealth. Even the Governor-General and the Prime Minister—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, resume your seat, please. Yes, Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This senator should know, having been here for some time, that you must refer to senators in their correct title. And a second point of order: can I draw the Deputy President's attention to the standing order which prohibits the reading of speeches—particularly by experienced people and particularly by people who cannot understand Mr Dreyfus's writing!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I remind all senators to refer to senators, and others in the other place, by their correct titles.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General has misled the Senate by claiming Mr Gleeson was consulted on the changes that he had sought—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, resume your seat. Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I raised two points of order. One of those was the one you have addressed. I wonder if you might address the other one about experienced members reading every note of their contribution.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I remind all senators of the standing order in relation to reading from notes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Solicitor-General has clearly advised this Senate, through its committee, that the claims made by the Attorney-General about consultation are incorrect. In fact, I think we should all be aware of this, because, on the basis of what the Attorney-General has said, any casual greeting in the corridor by this Attorney-General could be treated as consultation in the future!

What we know, of course, is simply this: we well know that this senator has misled the Senate, and we know that the misleading of the Senate is a very serious offence. This is not the first time. This is not the first occasion on which these issues have been raised. We have seen this not just in the question of the treatment of this chamber but also in the treatment of other judicial officers, such as the Human Rights Commissioner, who was simply doing her job. We know how, clearly, this Attorney-General offended the basic principles of his office by failing to defend the statutory officers in that particular matter.

What we know is that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the independence of the Solicitor-General and his capacity to do his job properly. We know he has dissembled about that. We know that in fact this is a serious offence and that the Prime Minister should have intervened by now. If the Attorney-General does not resign, he should be sacked. We understand simply this: he will continue to undermine the integrity of our legal system and he will continue to undermine the authority of his own office unless he is brought to book for what has occurred in these matters.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe it is because I am young and new to this place, but every time I have come into question time in this chamber this week I have been continually disappointed by the tone of questions asked by those opposite. We are elected by Australians who live in hope that we might do things in the best interests of this country, that we might come in here and debate policy. But instead we have had three days of questions about something that, I have to say, I do not think most Australians are interested in; they are not interested in mudslinging that is going on from those opposite. The people who come into the public gallery and the students who come here each day for question time must be so disappointed by what they see in this group of people, the opposition, who are supposed to hold the government to account. What has been demonstrated every day this week is that the best they have got is 'gotcha politics': 'This is what someone said, we believe, and this is what someone else said'—and it does not quite match up. I do not think the Australian people think that is what politicians are here for, to be quite frank.

Those opposite have demonstrated that they are completely out of touch with average Australia, thinking that we really ought to come in here and land a blow—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume you seat, Senator Duniam. Senator Brandis?

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

Madam Deputy President, can I ask your guidance about whether it is within the standing orders and within the decorum of the Senate for one senator over there—Senator Carol Brown—to continually be referring to my colleague Senator Duniam as 'laddie'.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, I was unaware of those comments.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate the protection being offered to me in relation to some of these comments, but, as Senator McKim pointed out, I have been called worse in my time—as has every other member of this chamber, I suspect.

I have been disappointed at the questions asked every day this week—apart from one question on policy, tacked onto the end of question time today, when they thought they had scored all the political points they needed, so they ventured into the area of jobs policy. In his answer, the Attorney-General spoke about our track record on job creation. In the last year alone, there have been 180,000 new jobs under this government, with a jobs growth rate twice that of the last year of the Labor government.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Thank you very much for your contributions.

All I can call this is overreach. They flew into Canberra this week thinking they were going to get a scalp: 'We are going to prosecute this until we get what we want.' They have gone down every burrow and split every hair. They have been semantic and pedants on every level, using up their entire time in question time every day trying to land a blow—which they have not done. They cannot prosecute this issue. They really do miss the point of why they are here, which is one of the most disappointing things about having come here and listened to them today and every day this week.

Senator Carr in his contribution just prior to mine talked about fitness for office. If you want to talk about fitness for office, I think the Australian people got it right when they returned the government to this side of the chamber and the opposition to where they should be. It is incredibly disappointing that they think this is what the people of Tasmania or Western Australia want—that they really want to hear all of these ridiculous detailed questions. Where are the questions about health and education, about our defence strategy, about what is going on with the Bass Strait equalisation scheme? Where are those questions? They do not exist. The questions we get are all about detail, insider politics, the Canberra press gallery hype about trying to knock off a minister—as I say, completely disappointing. Then, from the entire opposition, there is one question on policy right at the end. I think Tasmanians deserve better and I think Australians deserve better.

My colleagues from Tasmania have spent a lot of time interjecting on me. I challenge them to ask a question relevant to our state instead of allowing their questions committee to run these ridiculous political lines. Prove to the Tasmanian people that you want to stand up for them rather than just score political points. That is what I say to them. That is what we got elected to do. That is what senators in this place are paid well to do. I encourage the opposition, with one question time remaining this week, to talk about things that are relevant to the Australian people rather than try to score political points to get a headline here, a headline there, so they can go upstairs and do a Sky News interview afterwards. It is disappointing—I have said it a million times. I hope they lift their game.

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

I am a bit nervous to get up after that blast. Anyway, I will help you out, Senator Duniam. I know how it works, mate—you get the call; you got a take note. Congratulations, you had a good crack! Senator Duniam and I probably have a lot in common, because I think the standard of political representation in this nation is a disgrace, and a lot of it starts with those who have come straight out of school into a senator's or member's office as a staffer. They have never got dirt under their fingernails. They would not know what it is like to talk to a man in his mid-50s at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon who, through no fault of his own, has lost his job because of some restructure. Anyway, maybe I am getting a bit cynical and a bit old. Thank you for the advice, Senator Duniam.

The independence of the position of the Solicitor-General and the nature of the relationship between him or her and the Attorney-General of the day has been spoken about before in this chamber. What we have seen here, unfortunately, with the abuse of power, or what could be the abuse of power, at the hands of Senator Brandis with respect to his dealings with the current Solicitor-General, is nothing but appalling.

Just for a little bit of history, I am going to refer to my notes here. The office of the independent Commonwealth Solicitor-General was created in 1916 with the appointment of Sir Robert Garran. Prior to this, from 1903 to 1913, Sir Charles Powers had served as the first Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. For more than 110 years, Australia has seen independent solicitors-general give frank—

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

No—100 years; it is the centenary this year.

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

And he is at work again—100? Okay, let us go for 100. Whether it is for 100 or 110 years, Australia has seen independent solicitors-general giving frank and independent—there is that word again, independent—legal advice to the government of the day, who have respected their advice and the independence of the office. Unfortunately, this appears to have all gone out the window since Senator Brandis has become the Attorney-General. I wish I could say this behaviour is unprecedented. However, Senator Brandis has a track record of bringing his role into some disrepute, as a member of parliament and as the nation's highest legal officer.

As we have seen, a number of Senator Brandis's colleagues have come out to defend him. I do not get a giggle too often from Senator Reynolds, because there is nothing to giggle about, but I have to admit I had one yesterday when she referred to the Senate inquiry into Senator Brandis's handlings on this issue as—I quote her words not mine, through you, Madam Deputy President—a 'witch-hunt'. Senator Reynolds may see it that way, just as many of her colleagues, unfortunately, are burying their heads in the sand on this issue. But the truth of the matter is that this whole scenario is far from being a witch-hunt.

If this had been the first time Senator Brandis had slipped up with his responsibilities as a senator or as the Attorney-General then fair enough—apologise, move on, correct the record. It is not a jailable offence in Australia to make a mistake and own up to it. However, Senator Brandis's petulant attitude and ignorant reluctance to accept that he has not only—

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

You didn't write that, Senator Sterle—

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

I was thinking this aloud, Senator Brandis—misled the parliament but also damaged the reputation of the independence of the office of the Solicitor-General can be added to the long list of transgressions unfortunately perpetrated by the Attorney-General. Let us go over a few of them, shall we? Senator Brandis claimed to have consulted—and this came out yesterday in question time—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Gooda, before establishing the Don Dale royal commission, when no such consultation occurred. Senator Brandis gave incorrect information to parliament about the letter to him from Lindt cafe gunman Man Haron Monis and, when made aware of this fact, delayed correcting the record for no less than three days. Senator Brandis failed to defend another independent statutory office holder, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, from political attacks and, unfortunately, bullying. The Attorney-General subsequently offered an inducement to the President of the Human Rights Commission to quit her position after the commission issued a report—

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

Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: I know Senator Sterle has been instructed to read out this rubbish, but the last point is a reflection on me. I point out that a complaint was actually made to the Australian Federal Police by the Labor Party in relation to that allegation and, having examined the matter, the Australian Federal Police concluded that there was absolutely no basis for that assertion.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. We will check the record and report back.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, Madam Deputy President, in considering that, I would ask that your attention be drawn to the very clear evidence from Professor Triggs before the committee that the Attorney-General did indeed, via Mr Moraitis, arrange for an inducement to be offered for her resignation, and that evidence stands.

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

Madam Deputy President, Senator Wong is now reflecting. The matter was investigated, and it was found to be absolutely without substance by the proper authority.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. I have undertaken to have a look at the record and report back.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Senator Brandis breached cabinet rules by disclosing publicly the contents of a confidential cabinet debate on national security legislation.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I cannot believe we were such good friends 15 minutes ago, Senator Brandis, and now you are attacking me. That is very fickle. Senator Brandis famously sought to remove the Racial Discrimination Act's protection against speech that offends, insults or humiliates people on the basis of race. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers from the Attorney-General to the questions put to him regarding the Solicitor-General. I would like to pick up on a point that Senator Sterle has just made. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Sterle. I appreciate the fact that he has researched the history. The fact is that, yes, the office of the Solicitor-General was created in 1916 for the very purpose of assisting the Attorney-General in the performance of his duties, including his role as the principal legal adviser to government. What that means, if he is the principal legal adviser to government, is that he is the person who the government goes to for legal advice.

If you go to the Law Officers Act 1964—which is the law which sets out the Solicitor-General's role and functions—section 12 sets out the statutory functions of the Solicitor-General. Paragraph 12(b) provides that one of the Solicitor-General's functions is 'to furnish his or her opinion to the Attorney-General on questions of law referred to him or her by the Attorney-General'. Except where the Solicitor-General is acting as a counsel under paragraph 12(a) of the act—which is actually irrelevant to the legal services direction which is at question here—the Law Officers Act explicitly provides only one circumstance in which the Solicitor-General may provide an opinion to the government on a question of law, and that is where the Attorney-General refers that question to him. So if we want to go to the basis of this whole discussion, which is around what has transpired and what the Attorney-General has done: he has actually issued a direction and a guidance note which reinforce a law which has been in existence since 1964.

That brings me to the point raised by my colleague Senator Duniam, which is: why are the Labor Party spending every question time prosecuting this point? I support the contention of Senator Duniam that one motivation is that they are looking for political headlines, possibly even a political scalp. It is like a pack of wolves surrounding what they hope is going to be a wounded person on the government side. That has not occurred.

There is a second reason why they would be seeking to dominate the media headlines with this kind of inside-the-Beltway argument, and that is to distract the media and the Australian public from the things that this government is doing. We have just heard today, in answers in question time from the Minister for Finance and others, that business confidence is up, exports are up by 9.6 per cent, over 180,000 new jobs have been created in the past 12 months and the rate of jobs growth under this Turnbull government is twice that of the last year of the Labor government. When I get out and speak to people in the community—and, having just been through an election, like most other senators in this place I have spent a lot of time engaging with the community, as I do on a regular basis—they are not concerned about the inside-the-Beltway issues. They are concerned about things like job security. They are concerned about future opportunities for their children.

So one of the reasons, politically, that the Labor Party do not want the media, and therefore the public, to be focusing on the achievements of the government is that they want to try and undermine the public's faith and confidence in the Turnbull government. They do not want us to be talking about the fact that we have managed to actually start the job of budget repair by getting legislation through this place, which was supposed to be an unworkable Senate. We have agreed $6.3 billion worth of savings measures to start that progress towards budget repair. They do not want us talking about the fact that, after six years of inaction by the Labor Party on things like making decisions about Australia's future submarine and commissioning new vessels for Australia—which has directly lead to the 'valley of death' in my home state of South Australia, where we are seeing workers laid off from ASC because of the lack of orders from the Labor government—we have now signed contracts with DCNS for the future submarine and we have signed contracts with Lockheed Martin to be the combat system integrator. They do not want us talking about the fact that we are taking steps to implement things like the RAND review and make strategic naval shipbuilding a long-term, sustainable option for growing skills and high-end manufacturing jobs in Australia. These are the sorts of things that this government is focused on, because these are the sorts of things that are important to our national security and to mums and dads and families and young people looking for a future. This inside-the-Beltway stuff is a waste of the Australian public's time.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If one were to listen to those opposite about the Labor questions during question time, one would suspect that the rule of law is something which they consider to be 'inside the Beltway' and something about which to score political points. We on this side of the chamber make absolutely no apology whatsoever for stridently seeking to hold the government to account on every aspect of the government's administration. When it comes to the rule of law, can there be any more grave issue for the opposition to hold the government to account over? It underpins everything.

The issue of the independence of the Solicitor-General and the actions of the Attorney-General is daily in the media. It is not just the opposition talking about this issue; it is a matter of conjecture in the media as to this unseemly and unedifying stand-off between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, the nation's first and second law officers. This is not something which should be happening in the first place, and it is a great disappointment to me that we have an Attorney-General who is not seeking to uphold the independence of the Solicitor-General and, in fact, is going in the opposite direction by seeking to constrain the Solicitor-General in the advice that can be given to various aspects and elements of the government. This surely is a very important matter of public discussion. It is definitely not a matter which is 'inside the Beltway'. It goes, as I say, to so many other aspects of what is going on in our society.

We know that the job of the Solicitor-General is to provide legal advice to the government. However, somehow Senator Brandis has managed to seriously disrupt the Solicitor-General's ability to carry out the role. In fact, it can be said, as I said yesterday, that he has hobbled the ability of the Solicitor-General to do his job. To make the Solicitor-General have to obtain written approval from the Attorney-General to advise the Governor-General or indeed any head of a government department can only be described as a power grab. It undermines the important role of the Public Service in offering independent advice to government departments and it undermines the quality of the advice provided by the Solicitor-General.

Today Senator Brandis continued to undermine the Solicitor-General, by not condemning the speech made by Senator Macdonald, a fellow Queensland senator. Again, it is a matter of great disappointment to me that we have a Queensland senator involved in seeking to undermine an independent statutory officer. I heard Senator Macdonald yesterday, in interjections, and again today stating that the cause of his concern about the Solicitor-General related back to the fact that he was a Labor appointment. This, surely, is an area in which the Attorney-General should rush to the defence of the Solicitor-General. Appointments occur on both sides of politics, and for a government senator to criticise the appointment of the Solicitor-General merely because he was appointed by this side of the chamber undermines the rule of law that we have in this country.

Australians need to be able to trust their Attorney-General and we need to have trust in our Public Service. However, Senator Brandis has managed to undermine both his position as Australia's first law officer and the Solicitor-General's position as the second law officer. As a conservative, Senator Brandis is supposed to preserve our institutions, not politicise or destroy them. This is a complete mess. Australians are entitled to think, based on the mythology put forward by those opposite, that the conservative parties are the upholders of our public institutions. Unfortunately we see, yet again, that it is the coalition which is rushing to smash conventions which have underpinned our rule of law and which are so important. This Attorney-General has brought disrespect to his office. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.