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

I made a note of what Senator Pratt has asked. In answer to question No. 1: that matter has been dealt with on several occasions. I might remind the Senate that this issue has been the subject of questions at estimates, at a spillover estimates day and at the Senate references committee. On each occasion, the response has been that this question goes to legal advice and, therefore, consistent with the uniform practice of all Australian governments, it will not be provided for that reason on the ground of public interest immunity.

On question No. 2: no, Senator Pratt. I believe that I am obliged to comply with the same constitutional convention that every Australian Attorney-General and, indeed, minister has complied with in relation to protecting legal advice provided to the Commonwealth.

In relation to question No. 3, contrary to what is asserted in the question, a public interest immunity claim was fully articulated in response to the questions, and I table a copy of the public interest immunity claim as articulated. The requirement of Odgers', which is one point of view about this, and not the only point of view, is that a public interest immunity claim be fully articulated. It has been, and the document I have tabled you have seen before because it is in the form of the answers provided in articulating the public interest immunity claim.

In response to your fourth question, Senator Pratt, it is not a question of whether orders of the Senate were neither here nor there. The question is what my obligations are, as a minister and as an Attorney, to protect the position of the Commonwealth in relation to its legal advice, and that is explained and set out in the answers that were given, which are embodied in the document I have just tabled.

In answer to your fifth question, the requirement to provide a statement was complied with, so the assertion in your question is incorrect. But, nevertheless, out of courtesy to the Senate I have tabled, once again, the grounds of the public interest immunity claim—a claim, by the way, taken on advice.

The answer to your sixth question is explained in the document that has just been tabled and was explained in the written answer provided to the question when it was taken on notice. All other matters which you raise have been dealt with by me already in evidence before either the references committee or the estimates committee or in the instrument which I have tabled.