Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Well, what a performance from Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham today was supposed to supply all documents in relation to the money that was provided to the coalition's best mate in this place, former Senator Day. Senator Birmingham made no attempt to provide those documents and, unlike some other ministers, made no attempt to actually get up and address why they were not presented in line with the direction of the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Cameron is misleading the Senate. The documents have been provided to the Table Office.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is the case then I accept that; but documents are normally tabled here. We will see where the cover-up is and we will see what documents we have. They have to accept, I think, that what this is about is one thing: it is about destroying the capacity for working-class tradies to get a trade certificate. That is what this is about. What it is going to mean is that kids are going to end up going into registered training organisations like former Senator Day's pet training organisation, they will achieve some outcomes in terms of their technical education but they will not receive a trade certificate.

I think the coalition are not aware of how important it is to have a trade certificate. I do, because it is my only qualification. My only qualification is a trade certificate and a City & Guilds certificate to say that I completed my technical qualifications as a fitter and machinist. So it is very important that tradies get their trade qualification. It is very important that we do not see a diminution of the traditional trade training that takes place—the traditional trade training that even the government's own advisory group said was delivering. It was delivering flexibility. It was delivering good tradespeople, and they recommended against what this government has done. This government ignored their own group and their recommendations and set about giving almost $2 million to the most reliable crossbench senator in this place, the former Senator Day—a former member of the Liberal Party, a former high-office holder in the Liberal Party and a former very, very large donator to the Liberal Party in South Australia.

There are 1.65 million tradespeople in this country who are delivering the goods for this country in terms of productivity, in terms of the effort that tradies put in every day. They will be appalled to think that their trade certificate, the classification that they have and, for many of them, the only formal qualification that they have will be no more under this government, because this is what it is about: it is about destroying the trade certificate. It is about getting kids out of school into education within the registered training organisations, sitting on their backsides for most of the time, getting technical training but no on-the-job training—and, if you go on the job, you will go on the job with absolutely no payment.

This is an absolute rort. Former Senator Day went to Senator Birmingham and said, 'Give me $1.4 million for my pet project, 'and then Senator Birmingham set up the process to deliver not only the $1.4 million that he asked for but $2 million plus—$2 million plus was delivered! And the expert panel said, 'No need to do this.' But Senator Birmingham moved along and actually delivered what the expert panel said should not happen.

So tradies all over the country will be watching. The 1.6 million tradies in this country will have their trade recognition diminished under the coalition—absolutely diminished. This is not about productivity and it is not about the trades; it is about paying off former Senator Day, who was here as a reliable vote for the coalition. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was here two days ago, rising in this chamber at exactly the same time and, ironically, to speak on exactly the same issues. This is like deja vu all over again! And the last thing I want to do is to carry this metaphor any further, but I think one more time we have to refer to Alice in Wonderland: this is getting 'curiouser and curiouser'!

I am so fundamentally disappointed with the questions without notice asked by those opposite. There is no substance, there is no legislative focus. The government has important work to do and those opposite have a duty to constituents—they have a duty to all Australians—to get their act together, to start dealing with the substantive issues of policy and to get on with the job of statecraft.

I thought that perhaps today we would have some serious questions but, sadly, no—once again we are playing political games and personal witch-hunts rather than policy development and policy passage. Perhaps honourable senators will be more lucky next week and more dedicated in the next sitting week. This government, however, is getting on with the job.

On the issue of former Senator Day: I do not think this government could be more transparent in this matter. It has repeated these assertions: both the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Finance have made extensive statements to the Senate on Monday 7 November, outlining the time line and the circumstances surrounding the lease of former Senator Day's electorate office. The government has moved a motion in the Senate to refer the election of former Senator Bob Day to the High Court due to a potential breach of section 44(v) of the Constitution. And this passed the Senate unanimously on Monday 7 November. There is clearly only one body that has the power to determine whether former Senator Day was in breach of section 44, and that is the High Court. Those opposite agreed that this matter has now been referred to the High Court and it would be foolish of anybody to pre-empt their findings. And it is very important that neither house of parliament should try to have this matter tried outside of that court process.

On the issue of apprenticeships, that Senator Cameron has raised: clearly this government supports vocational education and training, and has made that support abundantly clear. Many stakeholders have raised concerns about apprenticeships, and this government has listened to those concerned. This is not surprising. It is not surprising, given that Labor cut $1.2 billion in apprenticeship incentives in government, leading to the largest single drop in apprenticeships on record. Senator Birmingham commissioned the Apprenticeship Reform Advisory Group to consider a range of issues, including incentives, pre-apprenticeships and alternative models. The advisory group made 22 recommendations, including to explore and pilot alternative apprenticeship delivery arrangements. The government addressed this recommendation by providing $9.2 million under the Apprenticeship Training alternative delivery pilots initiative. The Australian government is funding five projects under pilots. The pilots are being delivered by Master Builders Australia, the National Electrical and Communications Association, the North East Vocational College in Adelaide, the Australian Industry Group—the Ai Group—and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The pilots will test training models which provide alternative skills development options both for industry and for those undertaking the training.

The Turnbull government wants to support industry efforts to explore these new arrangements and to examine and test potential regulatory or administrative barriers to innovation in industry-led apprenticeship training practices. All five of these pilots will be subject to ongoing evaluation, and the findings will be used to contribute to an evidence base that will inform future policy developments. This government is getting on with the job and delivering that which Australians expect and deserve.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today about half an hour or 15 minutes before question time, the Attorney-General issued the repeal of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016. To anyone who actually bothered to look at legislation matters today, they would not really have known what that was about. They would have been distracted by that legalese—that boring wording. What that repeal is all about is a cloak for one of the most humiliating backdowns this chamber has ever seen. It is a humiliating backdown by this Attorney-General, who is fast becoming a complete embarrassment to this government—to the point that anywhere you go in Canberra there is active discussion underway about a ministerial reshuffle and about this Attorney-General being moved on to make way for someone who is actually up to the job.

Let us just retrace the history of this matter. For months now the Attorney-General has defended an unprecedented action that he took in issuing a direction which constrained the independence of this nation's Solicitor-General—our foremost lawyer. It required the Solicitor-General to get the permission of the Attorney-General to provide legal advice to anyone else in the government and it required anyone else in the government to come and seek the Attorney-General's permission before they could seek a legal opinion from the Solicitor-General. That has never happened before.

An inquiry that was held into this revealed that no other Solicitor-General had ever been subject to a similar direction, and yet this Attorney-General took it upon himself to issue that direction and constrain the independence of the nation's first legal officer. I talked about the report of this committee the other day and pointed out that we may reach three conclusions. Firstly, that this direction was improper. Secondly, that despite the Attorney-General's claims to the contrary, he did not consult the Solicitor-General in the issuing of that original direction, and, despite the fact that he is actually required to do so by law, not one other attendee at the meeting that the Attorney-General held with the Solicitor-General in November last year, which is the meeting the Attorney-General relies on to say he consulted the Solicitor-General, backs up the Attorney-General's claim. He did not consult the Solicitor-General. And, thirdly, and even worse than that, that he has repeatedly misled the Senate about this consultation. The explanatory note which was issued with the original direction said that he had consulted the Solicitor-General on at least five occasions. He has told either this chamber or a committee hearing that he has consulted the Solicitor-General when all other evidence is to the contrary. He has repeatedly misled the Senate and, as we know, this Attorney-General has done that on other occasions as well.

The Prime Minister has previously said that he regards the misleading of parliament as a very serious matter and that if you mislead the parliament you have no choice but to resign. Even the Attorney-General admitted within our hearing that he agreed that if a minister misleads this chamber then they have no choice but to resign. Well, I am afraid for this Attorney-General his time is up. It is time to go. It is time to resign.

As I said, just before question time today we saw the original direction constraining the Solicitor-General withdrawn by the Attorney-General. Why did he do that? He knew that he was going to lose. He knew that he did not have the numbers to push this through, that everyone had finally caught him out, that everyone knew what he was up to and that everyone knew that he had been misleading the Senate when he claimed to have consulted the Solicitor-General. How humiliating to spend the last few months consistently arguing that he had consulted the Solicitor-General and consistently arguing that this direction was needed, only to withdraw it 15 minutes before question time on the day the game was up.

We must ask ourselves why this Attorney-General would do this. Obviously, on the one hand he was finally aware that he was going to lose and a motion was going to be passed today disallowing the direction. But I think the real reason why this direction was withdrawn was exposed by the Attorney-General's colleague the member for Bowman, Mr Andrew Laming, when he said on Brisbane radio recently of the direction:

… it's no longer needed now because he's gone—

'he' being the Solicitor-General—

and if it gets thrown out it doesn't matter — Justin Gleeson's gone.

That is what this was all about. This was about the Attorney-General not wanting to have a Solicitor-General who was independent of mind and would actually provide him with real legal advice rather than the advice he wanted.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that this Attorney-General is a failure. He has given rise to the term 'Brandis Fail'. We have had Brandis Fail I, when he misled the Senate over the Man Monis letters. We have had Brandis Fail II when he was censured for attacking Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Now we have had Brandis Fail III, a humiliating backdown where he has had to withdraw his own direction about the Solicitor-General. I have not even got to the dodgy appointments to the AAT. Surely it is three strikes and you are out. No wonder there is talk about a reshuffle. No wonder there is serious talk about replacing him in the Senate with the member for Surfers Paradise in the state parliament, John-Paul Langbroek. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers provided by the Attorney-General to Senator Watt's questions. That does take us to the heart of the inquiry report that was tabled this week into the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016. I do not say this lightly, but I say it with great regret. The inquiry and the majority report, I think, shame us all in this chamber. The facts in this case, despite all the bluster from those on the other side, are very simple. The inquiry was established by Labor and by the Greens to king hit the Attorney-General. Instead they knocked out the Solicitor-General. After the Solicitor-General unexpectedly fessed up—somewhat inconveniently to those opposite who had set up the inquiry—that he had actually himself breached caretaker conventions by having a previously undisclosed secret conversation with the shadow Attorney-General during the election campaign period where he arguably communicated privileged information to the shadow Attorney-General, he had no choice but to resign.

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

Senator Gallacher?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is taking note of answers. The senator is reading a prepared speech. I thought we were having a debate.

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

I will just remind all senators that we can use notes.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Words matter in this place, and this is a very important issue—one of law and the reputations of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. If that is the best those opposite can do so that I get the details precise—

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

Order! That is a debating point. The standing rules say that we can refer to notes but you cannot read speeches.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the best you have got? I mean, really. So you might not like the fact that you inadvertently knocked out the Solicitor-General with this inquiry, but the facts are very clear. He had a conversation with the shadow Attorney-General during the caretaker period in breach of the caretaker guidelines which he was clearly obliged to follow, and he had absolutely no choice but to resign. As a barrister, the Solicitor-General must have known it was a breach of professional conduct and ethics to have ex parte discussions and breach client privilege. Consequently, the Solicitor-General had no choice but to resign. He was a senior legal adviser to the Commonwealth government, and it would be impossible after he had those conversations with the shadow Attorney-General which he did not disclose to either the secretary of the department or the Attorney-General. He had to go.

The shadow Attorney-General himself, as a previous Attorney-General and as a barrister, must have known better than to have made the call to the Solicitor-General, and certainly the Solicitor-General, a barrister himself, must have known better than to take the call and provide the information to the shadow Attorney-General that he did. Any objective analysis of the Solicitor-General's testimony will find it riddled with contradictions and unwarranted hubris. I am not surprised the Solicitor-General refused to answer a single one of my 34 questions to him after his bombshell revelation that he had in fact breached caretaker guidelines and breached privilege on information provided not only to the Attorney-General but also to the Prime Minister and potentially to the Governor-General as well.

Since when has it been discretionary for a witness in any Senate inquiry to flatly refuse to answer questions on the feeble excuse: 'There were too many questions' or 'I sort of, kind of, answered the questions before'?

An opposition senator interjecting—

No, he hadn't answered those questions. They were carefully crafted questions. Each question was linked to his testimony, mostly in relation to his bombshell revelation at the inquiry that he had breached caretaker guidelines and his professional duties as a barrister. But that is not the point, and those opposite know that.

Two issues that occurred in this inquiry should be of great concern to all in this place: firstly, the contempt the Solicitor-General has shown for all senators in this place by refusing to answer a single question on notice as a result of his testimony; and, secondly, the Labor and Greens members of this committee allowed him to use those feeble excuses to not answer a single one of my questions. The majority members' decision is a shocking precedent to set for future Senate committee inquiries. I understand why the majority committee members did not want them answered. If I had just fessed up to what he did in the inquiry, I would not want to answer the questions either—but it was too late. That horse had already bolted. It was too late when Labor committee members failed to do their due diligence with the shadow Attorney-General before they set up the inquiry. It was too late when, despite the fact that the government senators on the inquiry offered to have the inquiry in camera so as to preserve the dignity of the Solicitor-General and also that of the Attorney-General—oops, you king hit— (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of all answers to opposition questions. To start out, I want to go to the answers from Senator Birmingham to questions put by Senator Cameron. If you are a South Australian, you would not be unaware of the position of Family First with respect to employment opportunities, particularly for young people. I think they are on the record as saying that people should be able to work for whatever level of compensation they choose. If there were to be a minimum, it may well be $2 an hour. That is not a view that is generally supported by many people in South Australia, but I respect Senator Day's right to hold that view and to promulgate that view in whatever forum he sees fit. What I really do not think is all that proper is for a relationship to develop with the coalition government which allows for the coalition to be drawn into areas of potential disrepute, to put it mildly, where the views that are promulgated about people being able to work for whatever they like—$2 an hour is probably the minimum that they should get—and, therefore, reputable organisations who train hundreds of apprentices are given the same amount of contribution as organisations promoted by Senator Day.

If we look at Senator Cormann's contribution, it was: 'Nothing to see here. No rent paid. No arrangements in place. I was completely on top of things as Special Minister of State' Then, whoops, there is a matter for which another Special Minister of State seeks legal advice, and then we in this place are considering referring a senator to the High Court for potential pecuniary interests. Senator Cormann was, at the very least, asleep at the wheel. His defence at one stage was: because there was no rent paid, there was no reason to think there was any impropriety with respect to section 44 of the Constitution. I well remember the media coverage of the fact that Senator Day refused to move into a taxpayer funded office—he refused to move into it—and said he would go rent free for six months while arrangements were made. There was always the intent to have those premises rented by the Commonwealth. For two special of ministers of state and perhaps even three special ministers of state to have had carriage of that issue beggars belief when Senator Cormann says: 'Nothing to see here. I didn't a case or anything to answer.' The fact that he is sticking to his very comprehensive statement like glue means that he did have a case to answer and he needed to defend his position. That is the reason for his very comprehensive statement.

I turn to the Attorney-General, the Honourable George Brandis. There was one particular period of time when I had some sympathy for a view expressed by Senator Brandis. It was his very unkind characterisation of the Honourable John Howard. I had some sympathy for that view when he accused the former Prime Minister of mendacity and likened him to a rodent. That is as far as it goes. There were a few people on this side who thought that maybe Senator Brandis was on the right track. Since then, there has been a complete divergence of views. There was his treatment of Gillian Trigg; his treatment of the Solicitor-General; his arrogance at Senate estimates, where here got out a book of Australian poetry and pompously proceeded to read that while we were examining the accounts of the nation; his bookcase; his treatment of entitlements. He has always made himself the story. That is the thing about the Honourable Attorney-General: he becomes the story because of the way he conducts his affairs, and it is not becoming of the chief law officer of this country to always be the story. It should be about being prudent, having due diligence, governance and proper behaviour from our chief law officer. Instead, we end up with the Honourable George Brandis becoming the story. It is always going to continue until this government does something about the Attorney-General's position and returns it to its former august position, as it should be in any government of this nation.

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

Is the motion moved by Senator Cameron agreed to?

Question agreed to.