Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. In an article in today's The Daily Telegraph entitled 'Sex pest law view isolates Brandis', it is reported that three ministers have leaked against the Attorney-General, revealing that he argued against laws banning paedophiles from travelling overseas. Does the Attorney-General wish to correct the record?

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

I'm aware of a report. I don't discuss, either privately or publicly, what happens in cabinet.

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

Senator Watt, a supplementary question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the leaks, a spokesman for the Attorney-General said, 'It is not appropriate or lawful to comment on cabinet discussions.' Which of the Attorney-General's three cabinet colleagues are willing to break the law to leak against him?

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

Senator Watt, your question contains a premise that I don't accept, nor do I accept the report, which is full of inaccuracies.

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

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could, of course, correct those inaccuracies. I refer to the Attorney-General, who has previously said, 'Good governments do not suffer cabinet leaks.' Given the most recent cabinet leak, will the Attorney-General admit that the Turnbull government is a bad government?

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

Senator Watt, if I said that in the past, I'm sure it was true. Senator Watt, I adhere to everything that I've said in the past on this and other matters, but, as I pointed out to you in answer to your first supplementary question, the premise of your question is based on an article which, itself, is full of inaccuracies.