Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the conflict:

… appears to be a legal difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General.

What is the cause of this breakdown in the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General? Is the validity of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016 the only legal difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?

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

Senator Chisholm, it is wrong to characterise the difference of legal opinion that I have with Mr Gleeson about the effect of the direction as a breakdown of relations. Lawyers disagree with each other about the law all the time. That is why I was at pains to try and explain to your colleague Senator Collins that legal propositions are intrinsically contestable. The best evidence of that you could possibly have is to go down the road and look at the High Court of Australia, where almost half of the decisions that the High Court gives are majority decisions in which some of the justices dissent from the majority opinion of the court. At every level in the legal profession, from the most junior lawyers of the land to the justices of the High Court of Australia, lawyers have differences of view about legal propositions. That does not mean there is a breakdown of relations between them. In fact, the entire system of our law is based upon a dialectical process of argument.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

On my left: you have a colleague on his feet waiting to ask a question. Senator Chisholm, your supplementary question.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the High Court matter between the Bell Group in liquidation and the state of Western Australia. Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to this matter, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the manner in which it was provided?

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

As I recall, in fact, the Solicitor-General appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth in the High Court in that matter. In relation to advice: as you know, the Commonwealth does not disclose legal advice.

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

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

It is a point of order. The point of order is direct relevance. The Attorney-General was not asked about the content of the advice; he was simply asked whether advice was provided in relation to the Bell Group in liquidation matter.

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

The Attorney-General has concluded his answer. Senator Chisholm, your final supplementary question.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did the Solicitor-General provide any advice in relation to the prorogation of parliament, and did the Attorney-General have or raise any concerns about the advice or the manner in which it was provided?

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

As I have said in answer to your previous question, the Commonwealth does not comment on legal advice or the fact of legal advice.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! The Attorney-General has answered the question.