Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the issue of the behaviour and conduct of the Attorney-General, because this has been an issue of some focus in the media and, certainly, in this Senate. I think it is useful to remind us all of the behaviour of this Attorney-General, not just on this occasion but over a period of time.

The Attorney-General is the first law officer of the land. This means he should defend and promote Australia's legal system, and that he should support the independence of our courts and of senior statutory office holders within the legal system. It means he should set an example of ethical standards, personal integrity and basic honesty. And, of course, like all ministers, the Attorney-General should not mislead the parliament or the public. Regrettably, Australia's Attorney-General has failed to meet these fundamental obligations of his office.

This is the Attorney-General who not only failed to defend the President of the Human Rights Commission when she was subject to political bullying; he then tried to induce her to resign her office. This is the Attorney-General who stood here and told the world that it was okay to be a bigot. This is the Attorney-General who deliberately delayed correcting the parliamentary record about the letter to him from the Lindt cafe gunman, Man Monis.

And now we have Senator Brandis's latest demonstration that he is not fit to be Attorney-General. He has attempted to undermine the independence of a senior statutory office holder, the Solicitor-General, and then he has attempted to mislead the parliament about his conduct. Now, as is his wont, Senator Brandis seeks to brush off this matter. Frankly, that is typical of a man who seems to regard ministerial standards and ethical conduct as mere nuisances.

The Attorney-General's conduct concerning the Solicitor-General is not trivial. It represents a major attack on the independence of the Solicitor-General. It puts at risk the quality of legal advice to government departments and agencies as they develop policies, implement legislation and defend the Commonwealth's legal interests. The minister whose job it is to uphold the law has been exposed as flouting the law by failing to comply with the legislation's requirements to consult before making a legislative instrument. And, finally, the Attorney-General has been caught out breaching one of the most fundamental requirements of our democratic system of government: ministerial accountability to the parliament.

This matter started when Senator Brandis made an amendment to the Legal Services Directions in May. The Legal Services Directions set out rules and requirements for the performance of Commonwealth legal work. Senator Brandis's amending direction bars the Solicitor-General from providing legal opinions or advice to anyone in government without the Attorney-General's permission. It prohibits any Commonwealth agency or officer from referring a question of law to the Solicitor-General without the written permission of the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. This is a blatant power grab. It is a bid to control the flow of legal advice from the independent Solicitor-General to government departments and to senior figures in the government.

And remember just who is making this power grab: the same Attorney-General who failed to seek advice from the Solicitor-General on the constitutionality of a raft of amendments to the government's foreign fighters' citizenship legislation and the same Attorney-General whose mishandling of marriage equality has been exacerbated by his failure to seek advice from the Solicitor-General about the government's proposals at critical points in the process. It appears that Senator Brandis is of the view that the only legal opinion anyone could ever need is his opinion. And he continues to fail to disclose fully the facts to this Senate. We saw that yesterday in question time, when he was asked why he did not make clear to the Senate in debate on the citizenship bill that the Solicitor-General had not been asked to look at the bill that was introduced. And, again, he obfuscated. It is quite clear from the Solicitor-General's letter that the evidence he gives about his involvement is not what this Attorney-General said to the chamber. His actions demonstrate how monumentally arrogant and, frankly, deluded this Attorney-General has become.