Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Final questions, Senator Brandis. I refer to reports that the Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered Ministers Hunt and Tudge and Assistant Minister Sukkar to make submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt. When did the Attorney-General first become aware of the Supreme Court order?

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

It is, strictly speaking, not an order, but I became aware of the matter yesterday.

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

Senator Moore, a supplementary question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the clarification, Attorney. Can the Attorney-General confirm reports that the Solicitor-General will represent Ministers Hunt and Tudge and Assistant Minister Sukkar tomorrow in the Supreme Court of Victoria? If so, did the Attorney-General authorise the Solicitor-General acting in this matter?

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

I can confirm that, and yes, I did, in accordance with ordinary procedure and protocols.

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

Senator Moore, a final supplementary question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again for the clarification, Attorney. Given that the Attorney-General is the first law officer of the nation, what action have you taken to explain to your colleagues the importance of the independence of the judiciary and the impartial application of the role of law?

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

Senator Moore, my colleagues are well aware of the importance of the independence of the judiciary. They are well aware of the importance of the independence of the judiciary, but I remind you, Senator Moore, that the independence of the judiciary has never been understood by the judiciary themselves to be a prohibition against criticism. As a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria—Crown v Witt—found last year, the common law upholds the right of any person to freedom of speech and expression. Such rights of course extend to criticism of judicial decision-making. The courts cannot be and are not immune from criticism which may extend to robust observations of a particular decision or penalty.