Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the submissions of the former Solicitor-General Gavan Griffith QC to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Griffith QC that an independent Solicitor-General protects against the risks of the provision's, in his words, 'dodgy advice'?

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

I do not agree with everything Dr Griffith has said in the words attributed to him in this morning's paper, Senator Farrell.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There is one question I am asking in respect of this matter, and that is: does Senator Brandis agree with the dodgy advice that is referred to—

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

There is no point of order. The Attorney-General has just barely started his answer. He is five seconds into his answer, so I think we can give the Attorney-General a bit more time.

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

I read what Dr Griffith had to say and I do not agree with all of it. I am not alone in disagreeing with Dr Griffith, by the way, because another former law officer of the Crown has expressed a different view. He recently said:

… that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government, higher than advice from the Australian Government Solicitor or from the private bar. Nevertheless, he would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues:

Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again.

Do you know which senior law officer recently expressed that opinion? It was Mr Mark Dreyfus. I do not agree with Dr Griffith, but neither, apparently, does Mr Mark Dreyfus in his contribution to Professor Gabrielle Appleby's book The role of the Solicitor-General. I would have thought that Mr Dreyfus's words, which—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order.

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order on my right! I need to hear the point of order.

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

I know the Attorney is very obsessed with Mr Dreyfus. I know that. We all know that. But I would suggest—

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

What is the point of order, Senator Wong?

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

The point of order is on direct relevance. We did not actually ask about Mr Dreyfus. I know Senator Brandis thinks about him a lot. We asked about Mr Griffith QC and his views. I have not intervened for a minute, but as yet he has not actually got to the point.

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

I believe the Attorney-General answered it up-front by saying he does not agree and that there are other people who disagree. So I think he did answer the question quite succinctly.

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

Mr Dreyfus's views, which on this occasion accord with mine, must have been fresh in his mind since the book which quotes him was only published last month. This is why I find it very difficult to understand how Mr Dreyfus could, without hypocrisy, have attacked me for allegedly doing the very thing that he said he did and would do again.

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

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why has the Attorney-General, to quote Mr Griffith QC, sought to convert this great office into one of 'closet counsel' within the Attorney-General's political office?

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

Senator Farrell, you are adorable! You are very, very popular on this side, but I am particularly grateful to you for this question today! It does happen to be the case, Senator Farrell, that on this issue I agree with Mr Dreyfus, although I do not agree with his hypocrisy in attacking me in a press release for taking precisely the same course that he said to Professor Appleby in her recently published book that he did and would do again.

As Mr Dreyfus went on to observe:

Because, despite the fact that I say the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still …

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Again, as I said, Senator Brandis may be obsessed with Mr Dreyfus—

Senator Fifield interjecting—

It is not inconvenient. I know they have a thing, but they can have their arguments elsewhere. The question was about the submission of Dr Griffith QC about what this Attorney-General is doing. It is a serious issue. It is a quote from a man who was the Solicitor-General for 14 years and much more eminently qualified than the Attorney-General. He ought to respond.

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

Think you, Senator Wong. I do agree with your point of order. I remind the Attorney-General of the question.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Order on my right!

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

No jokes about the Dreyfus affair, thank you, Senator Cormann. As Mr Dreyfus said:

And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Now Senator Brandis is simply flouting your ruling.

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

I did remind the Attorney-General of the question. The Attorney-General only has one second in which to answer.

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

I do not agree.

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

Senator Farrell, a further supplementary question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again refer to Dr Griffith QC, who says 'a government of integrity' would not shirk independent legal advice even if it is inconsistent with the government's political preference. Why is the Attorney-General further undermining what little integrity this government has?

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

Far from doing so, Senator Farrell, what I am doing is following a well-established practice, which was also followed, as we have learned, by my immediate predecessor in this office, Mr Mark Dreyfus, who—if I might read it to you again, Senator, since you were not listening the first time—said that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues:

Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister.

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

Senator Wong, a point of order.

Government senators interjecting—

On my right!

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Cormann and Senator Collins!

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I mentioned Senator Cormann first, but you were shouting; you couldn't hear me.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, a point of order.

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

Again, this goes to direct relevance. I do not understand how quoting Mark Dreyfus can possibly be relevant to the question. Unlike the Attorney, the former Attorney-General Mr Dreyfus never had Solicitors-General like Gavan Griffith come out and say the things about him that this man has said about you.

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

Thank you, Senator Wong. You are now debating the point. Order! There is no point of order. The Attorney-General answered the question at the commencement of his answer quite succinctly.

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

As Mr Dreyfus said:

… despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that.

(Time expired)