Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Did the Attorney-General seek legal advice in relation to the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 before tabling it in the Senate on 4 May 2016, or did he rely on his own opinion?

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

Senator, as I have been saying ad nauseam, I actually consulted the Solicitor-General in relation to the matter on 30 November. I invited him to put his views in writing, which he did some 14 weeks later, and I had regard to those views.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the submission of Dr Gavan Griffith QC, who was the Solicitor-General for 14 years, in which he says that the direction was:

… ultra vires and of no effect as a lawful direction …

Is the Attorney-General confident that the former Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith QC, is wrong?

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

I have read the remarks attributed to Dr Griffith, but the legal services direction was published—the current Solicitor-General having been consulted in relation to it and on the advice of my department.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that such eminent and well-respected legal figures as Solicitor-General Gleeson SC and former Solicitor-General Gavan Griffith QC state the direction is legally invalid, how can senators possibly be asked to accept the Attorney-General's assertions to the contrary when he has a reputation for being 'slippery' with the facts.

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

I have nothing to add to my previous answer.