Katy Gallagher ACT, Australian Labor Party
2:39 pm
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Solicitor-General's submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee regarding the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, which states:
… there was no consultation with me, and no oral or written submissions were sought from me.
Is the Solicitor-General correct?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
Senator Gallagher, I have addressed this now to three of your colleagues and I do not think I can add to what I have already said. I have prepared a detailed submission to the relevant Senate committee, which explained what my position is. Obviously, the Solicitor-General and I have a difference of view as to the discussion in my office on 30 November, and the submission he made to me in writing in March 2016 constitutes a consultation within the meaning of section 17 of the Legislation Act. He has one view; I have another.
Stephen Parry President
Thank you, Attorney-General. Senator Gallagher with a supplementary question.
Katy Gallagher ACT, Australian Labor Party
2:40 pm
I refer to paragraph 47 of the Solicitor-General's submission, which states:
… while there was discussion about the Guidance Note at the meeting on 30 November 2015, the Guidance Note and the Direction are significantly different.
The Solicitor-General goes on to attest that the making of the direction was not discussed at the meeting. Is the Solicitor-General correct?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
In relation to the legal services direction, the guidance note and the relationship between them, I refer you to paragraph 7 of my own submission.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Yes, but I think he sat down. He was just asked if the Solicitor-General was correct. Is he not prepared to answer that question?
Stephen Parry President
Have you concluded your answer, Attorney-General?
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
I think everybody will see that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has refused to answer the question.
Stephen Parry President
There is no point of order.
Government senators interjecting—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! On both sides! Senator Gallagher with a final supplementary question.
Katy Gallagher ACT, Australian Labor Party
2:41 pm
Given the Solicitor-General's unimpeachable reputation as Australia's leading counsel and the Attorney-General's reputation for being slippery with the truth—
Unidentified interjection - Hansard doesn't record who said this
Government Senators:
Government senators interjecting—
Katy Gallagher ACT, Australian Labor Party
why should the Senate believe your claim that you have consulted with—
Stephen Parry President
Order! Senator Gallagher, you will have to withdraw that remark.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Oh, come on!
Stephen Parry President
Yes. There was a direct imputation reflecting adversely on a parliamentarian. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Mr President, I would ask you to reflect upon that. The opposition's position—which, if I may say, most of the Australian community believes—is that this minister has misled the Senate. It is a legitimate point of debate.
Stephen Parry President
It is how you couch the phrases, and that phrase was couched in a way that impugned the Attorney-General. I ask Senator Gallagher to withdraw.
Katy Gallagher ACT, Australian Labor Party
My further supplementary question to the Attorney-General is: why should the Senate believe your claim that you consulted with the Solicitor-General, rather than Mr Gleeson's categorical denial that such consultation took place?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
2:42 pm
Stephen Parry President
Order! Senator Wong!
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
And Senator Macdonald! Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Mr President, I would ask that that be withdrawn. Senator Macdonald has just asserted that Mr Gleeson was a Labor appointee and that is the problem.
Government senators interjecting—
Stephen Parry President
Order on my right! Senator Macdonald, on the same matter?
Ian Macdonald Queensland, Liberal Party
On the point or order, Mr President: Senator Wong is clearly misleading the Senate and attributing to me things I did not say. What I said was that Mr Gleeson is a Labor appointee—and that, I am sorry, is correct.
Stephen Parry President
Thank you. There is no point of order on either side.
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
Mr Gleeson wrote to me on 12 November last year and identified in a letter, which you have seen, a particular problem. I invited him to come to my office so that we could discuss that problem. That meeting happened on 30 November last year and we had a long discussion about that problem. At the end of that meeting I invited him to put his thoughts in writing to me, which he did 14 weeks later. I considered what he had said to me at the meeting, I considered what he had reduced to writing in his letter to me of March 2016, I sought advice from my department and I made some decisions. Mr Gleeson and I have a difference as to whether or not that process constitutes a consultation within the meaning of section 17 of the Legislation Act. Those are the metes and bounds of this difference.