Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As we all know in this chamber there is no greater fear, for want of a better word, than of being accused of misleading the Senate. It is a very serious accusation. But what we have here is that the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has had his own legal adviser accuse him of doing such a thing, of misleading the parliament.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 5 October that the Solicitor-General:

Mr Gleeson, the government's top legal adviser—

as we all know—

said in an explosive submission to the inquiry that he had not been consulted about a change requiring all ministers - including the prime minister - to obtain the written approval of Senator Brandis before seeking his advice.

This has never happened before.

Days before the federal election, we have been told and we know, the Attorney-General issued a directive instructing that no minister—including the Prime Minister—can seek advice from Mr Gleeson 'except with the consent of the Attorney-General'. Legal experts have expressed concern that this directive is a power grab that restricts the independence—and this is the key word—of the Solicitor-General. Further, legal experts have expressed concern the move could mean Mr Gleeson, an apolitical legal adviser on major issues, who appears in high profile cases on behalf of the government of the Commonwealth, is 'frozen out' of advising the government.

Let us just have a proper look at the role of the Solicitor-General. This is taken directly from the Attorney-General's website.

The Solicitor-General is the second law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia—

behind the Attorney General. The Sydney Morning Herald says:

Their role is to provide independent—

here it is again—

apolitical advice to government on matters of national significance and appear in high-profile court cases on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Back to the Attorney-General's website:

The function of the Solicitor-General under s 12 of the Law Officer's Act 1964 (Cth) is to act as counsel for the Commonwealth and its emanations, to furnish opinions on questions of law on referral by the Attorney-General and to perform such other functions ordinarily performed by counsel as the Attorney directs.

In the role as counsel, the Solicitor-General will ordinarily appear as one of the counsel representing the Commonwealth in all matters before international judicial and arbitral tribunals.

The Solicitor-General also appears in most matters in the High Court of Australia involving the Commonwealth and its emanations and in select matters of importance in the intermediate appellate courts of Australia. In 2013 and 2014, the Solicitor-General appeared in matters involving constitutional law, extradition, migration, native title, trade practices, taxation, corporations, customs, international arbitration and criminal law.

The Solicitor-General also provides a substantial number of opinions each year in Commonwealth matters.

The Solicitor-General is assisted by two counsel assisting and also works in close collaboration with senior officers of the Attorney-General's Department, Australian Government Solicitor, other key departments and agencies and with leading counsel from the private bar.

What I want to get to, and I think this is very important—it brings it into perspective—is an article in today's Canberra Times that I read with interest, which drew an interesting point of view on this matter. It said that despite the Attorney-General saying otherwise:

Mr Gleeson said he was not consulted and released a letter he had written to the attorney general which appeared to support his claim. Senator Brandis released the same letter but in much more highly redacted form.

Mr Gleeson's version indicated he had not been consulted on issues such as the revocation of Australian citizenship, marriage equality and the release of Sir John Kerr's correspondence with the Queen.

If this was because the government did not want to hear what he had to say, we all have a problem. A regime that is afraid to listen to independent, and authoritative, advice is only interested in ruling for itself, not for the broader community it is meant to represent.

To make this point a bit more finite, I would like to expand by saying that an Attorney-General who is afraid to listen to independent and authoritative advice, who restricts access to that advice and who seeks that advice from someone who is not the Solicitor-General is only interested in ruling for himself and not for the broader community.

I will leave this thought with the Senate. Someone is not telling the truth. It is either the top lawman, or his offsider. Someone has to come out and tell the truth— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.