Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Attorney-General. Senator Gallagher with a supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, do you have a point of order?

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

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you concluded your answer, Attorney-General?

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

I think everybody will see that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has refused to answer the question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the Solicitor-General's unimpeachable reputation as Australia's leading counsel and the Attorney-General's reputation for being slippery with the truth—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

why should the Senate believe your claim that you have consulted with—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Gallagher, you will have to withdraw that remark.

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

Oh, come on!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr President.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Gallagher.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right! Senator Macdonald, on the same matter?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. There is no point of order on either side.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.