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

This is a question to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. The Attorney-General, when asked in question time yesterday whether he agreed with Senator Macdonald's statement on the Solicitor-General, advised the Senate that he was not aware of that statement. I ask the Attorney-General: have you, Attorney-General, forgotten that you were asked about the same matter—Senator Macdonald's statement—in a television interview only seven hours earlier?

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

What I said was that I had not read Senator Macdonald's speech, and I have not.

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

Senator Carr, your supplementary question.

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

I refer the Attorney-General to the actual comments that he made on Sky News at 7.42 am yesterday, where, in response to a question about whether he agreed with Senator Macdonald's assertion, he said, 'I'm not going to associate myself with that remark'. Will the Attorney-General now repeat that position and disassociate himself from Senator Macdonald's remarks?

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

I do not have a transcript of the interview with Sky News; however, I do have a transcript of my answer to the question yesterday, which has been given to me. What I said yesterday, so you can have the full remark, is this:

I did not see or read Senator Macdonald's speech, and I do not comment, as a matter of practice, on speeches that I have not seen or read.

That is the case.

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

Senator Carr, your final supplementary question.

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

Given that the Attorney-General was clearly familiar with Senator Macdonald's attack on the Solicitor-General, why could he not provide a straight answer to the Senate? Is this yet another example of the Attorney-General being slippery with the facts?

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

A point of order, Senator O'Sullivan.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the same one, and I am going to persist in making it: the term 'slippery' has connotations—I researched it overnight—and I ask that they withdraw those references.

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

My answer will be the same as to that point of order yesterday. Whilst I am not regarding it as being unparliamentarily, it is borderline.

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

It was the case yesterday, when I told the Senate I had not seen or read Senator Macdonald's speech, that I had not.

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

You were aware of it!

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

That is not what I was asked, and that is not what I said. It is still the case that I have not seen or read Senator Macdonald's speech.