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 submission of the former Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith QC, to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in which he says the result of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016—I stress the direction, not the minister's attempt to divert attention by referring to Attorneys-General's conduct—'will be the demeaning of the office to the equivalent of attracting monkeys'.

Does the Attorney-General agree?

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

I do not agree.

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

I again refer to the submission of the former Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith QC, in which he states:

The Law Officers Act might be better to be repealed rather than the Office demeaned to this level …

Does the Attorney-General agree?

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

Senator Collins, I do not—I do not agree with Dr Griffith. As Mr Dreyfus observed recently, if I have learnt anything in my legal career I have learnt that most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I know Senator Collins is not educated in the law, but legal propositions are innately contestable. That is the point about the law.

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

Senator Wong, a point of order.

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

My point of order is on relevance, again. The Attorney continues to refer to Mr Dreyfus seeking additional opinions. The issue in question is that this Attorney is trying to stop, prevent, ministers and other parts of the Commonwealth seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. It is entirely different. He is seeking to prevent ministers and other parts of the government seeking independent legal advice from the Solicitor-General unless he ticks off on it.

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

On the point of order, Senator Brandis.

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

On this question and previous questions today and previous questions throughout the week the point that is being sought to be made in various ways is that I am on my own on this.

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

You are.

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

We have just heard Senator Wong affirm that that is the point of the Labor Party's question. I am quoting my immediate predecessor in office, who also, by the way, happens to be my accuser, and he said that he engaged in precisely the same practice for which I am being criticised by the Labor Party.

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

I have been asked to rule on relevance, as a point of order.

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

He should withdraw.

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

Withdraw what, Senator Wong?

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

The assertion that it is precisely the same practice is a mislead. It is not precisely the same practice. No Attorney-General has issued a direction.

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

That is a debating point. I intend to rule on the point of order. Senator Macdonald on the same point of order?

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

Is the leader of the opposition able just to get up and start speaking without even being called by you to make a point of order? Can you bring her to order and make sure she understands and obeys the standing orders?

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

I remind all senators that they must observe the standing orders in relation to seeking the call and being given the call. On the point of order, Senator Wong raised a point of order on relevance of the Attorney-General's answer to the question asked by Senator Collins. The question asked by Senator Collins was 'Does the Attorney-General agree?' The Attorney-General, straight up, said, 'No, I do not agree' and then he enhanced his answer. As I and past Presidents have always allowed, if you answer the question you can enhance that answer providing you are on the topic.

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

He is talking about a different topic. That is the point.

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

That is not a different topic. He is supporting his answer. The Attorney-General has the call.

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

Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. The point I was making is the reason I disagree with Dr Griffith and agree on one occasion with Mr Dreyfus is that, as Mr Dreyfus says, most legal problems are capable of another outcome. If I have learnt anything in my legal career, I have learnt that. Mr Dreyfus is quite right, because, Senator Collins, the essence of the law, and this direction was a legal rule, is that legal propositions are innately contestable.

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

I again refer to the submission of the former Solicitor General, Dr Griffith QC, who in relation to the direction—not in relation to past conduct of Attorneys-General; in relation to the direction—said:

The image of a dog on a lead comes to mind.

Isn't it true that the direction—I stress 'the direction'—was the Attorney-General's attempt to bring the Solicitor-General to heel? (Time expired)

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

Senator Collins, I do not agree with that at all and I think it is a very unfortunate choice of words. What it implies is an attack on the independence of the Solicitor-General. Every Solicitor-General is a barrister, and every barrister is independent. Nobody can tell a barrister what to say in their advice, whether it be the Solicitor-General, whether it be the Attorney-General, whether it be the most junior man or woman admitted to the bar yesterday—every barrister is absolutely independent in the advice they give their client. That is in fact a pillar of the bar—the independence of the bar of which Mr Gleeson is a member, of which I am a member and which upholds that principle of independence absolutely.