My question is also to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General update the Senate on how the government intends to respond to the work of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

Yes, I can. I thank Senator Edwards for his question and his keen interest in this area of policy. The government announced as part of the red tape review that the Office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor would not be extended beyond its current three-year term.

What about the laws?

I wish to take the opportunity to thank the gentleman who served as the independent monitor, Mr Bret Walker SC, for his service in that role over the past three years. But to come directly to your question, Senator Edwards, we acknowledge that in that three-year period the independent monitor did some useful work which deserves a response.

Now last night, the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, put out a press release calling attention to the importance of the work of the independent monitor of national security since it was established in 2011. I wonder, therefore, why it was that throughout the entire life of the Labor government, from the time that office was established in 2011 till the Labor Party went out of office in September 2013, it responded to neither of the reports that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor had published. The independent monitor of national security laws published his first report in December 2011. It was entirely disregarded by the Labor government. He published his second report in December 2012 and by the time the Labor government went out of office that had not been responded to either. We acknowledge good work was done by Mr Walker and we intend to respond to those reports.

I have a further question of the Attorney-General. Is he aware of any alternative approaches to and views on the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor?

Yes I am, Senator Edwards. I have just referred to them in my answer to your primary question. That is the attitude of creating an office, investing it with wide powers of inquiry—which on reflection duplicated pre-existing other offices and committees such as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Australian Law Reform Commission and other appropriate bodies—tasking an eminent barrister to take up this task to review national security laws and then entirely disregarding his reports for the lifetime of the entire government. Because that is the respect that the former Attorney-General, now shadow Attorney-General Mr Dreyfus, took to the national security monitor's role. Before the office is wound up, we will respond to the work that he did.

Order!

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the Attorney-General aware of any alternative views on the role of the Attorney-General?

As a matter of fact, I am. As a matter of fact, I am—

This is embarrassing. Tell us how good you are.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order on my left! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence.

As a matter of fact, I am, Senator Edwards. An article that the shadow Attorney-General, the former Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, wrote yesterday has been drawn to my attention. In it he recommends an Attorney-General taking a, to quote his words, 'conformist and largely passive approach'. Now we certainly know that Mr Dreyfus took a conformist and largely passive approach because he never did anything. He never did anything and you cannot be more passive than someone who never does anything, not even to the extent of responding to the reports of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor that was established by his government. But I do not accept Mr Dreyfus's attempts now to politicise national security issues.