David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

This motion is not about the coalition. It's not about their stack of the AAT. Indeed, the Greens are on the record as being deeply concerned by the politicisation of the AAT. This motion is about the current Attorney-General. It's about a meeting that was arranged on behalf of the current Attorney-General. An invitation was made by the AG to meet with Justice Meagher and Michael Hawkins, the president and registrar of the AAT respectively, on 25 November 2022. That's what it's about. It's about a meeting between the Attorney-General and the registrar and the president of the AAT on 25 November 2022, and the reason we want to know what occurred at that meeting is that, following that meeting and, it appears, as a result of that meeting, the president resigned.

The president is a statutory officer, protected with tenure and not able to be removed by the Attorney-General. The president can only be removed by a resolution passed by both houses of this parliament. That is to prevent the politicisation of the AAT. It is to protect the AAT. It is to protect the independence of the AAT. We found out not in a document volunteered by the government in estimates. After the house moved the resolution calling for papers, we found out that it was as a result of that meeting on 25 November 2022 between the Attorney-General and the president that the president resigned. And we know this because we finally have the communication written from the president to the Attorney-General, and I will just read it onto the record. It's from 30 November 2022 and it reads: 'Dear Attorney, having regard to our meeting on Friday 25 November 2022, I inform you that I am today offering my resignation as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Governor-General. I have made myself available to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to sit as required there.'

'Having regard to our meeting on Friday 15 November 2022.' What happened in that meeting? The Attorney explained what happened in that meeting. The Greens may not have chosen President Meagher to be the president of the AAT. We may have chosen somebody else. We may have chosen someone with different experience. But this isn't about the choice of President Meagher to head the AAT. This is about the removal from office of the president of the AAT. This is about ensuring the independence of the AAT and ensuring there's no political interference with it and ensuring that no Attorney-General can at their whim just remove somebody from a statutory office when it's protected by legislative tenure.

So, when we hear from the minister that they will produce nothing about that meeting, and when they rely upon a claim of privilege which is based upon preserving the confidentiality of communications between the Attorney-General and statutory office holders, there's no such privilege. There's no such immunity. It's not known to the law. It's not known to this house. It's not a basis to refuse the production. If nothing untoward happened in the meeting, show us the minutes. If nothing untoward happened at all, please just show us what occurred in the meeting.

Far from this motion being a politicisation of the AAT, this is a motion designed to ensure the integrity and political independence of not just the president of the AAT but any other statutory office holder that is within the remit of the Attorney-General's jurisdiction. This is about ensuring independence and ensuring that people with tenure and statutory positions cannot be removed, if that's what happened, at the whim of the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister or any senior minister. If there's nothing to be troubled about, show us the documents, Attorney. Show us what happened in that meeting.