Because this has been an issue of some focus in the media and certainly in this Senate and I think it is useful to remind us all of the behaviour of this Attorney-General, not just on this occasion, but over a period of time.
The Attorney-General is the first law officer of the land and this means he should defend and promote Australias legal system.
He should support the independence of our courts and of senior statutory office-holders within the legal system.
And it means he should set an example of ethical standards, personal integrity and basic honesty.
And of course like all Ministers, the Attorney-General should not mislead the Parliament or the public.
Regrettably Australias Attorney-General has failed to meet those fundamental obligations of his office.
This is the Attorney-General who not only failed to defend the President of the Human Rights Commission when she was subject to political bullying he then tried to induce her to resign her office.
This is the Attorney-General who stood here and told the world it was OK to be a bigot.
This is the Attorney-General who deliberately delayed correcting the Parliamentary record about the letter to him from the Lindt caf gunman Man Monis.
And now we have Senator Brandiss latest demonstration that he is not fit to be Attorney-General.
He has attempted to undermine the independence of a senior statutory office-holder, the Solicitor-General, and then he has attempted to mislead the Parliament about his conduct.
Now, as is his wont, Senator Brandis seeks to brush off this matter.
Frankly, that is typical of an Attorney-General who regards Ministerial standards and ethical conduct as mere nuisances.
The Attorney-Generals conduct concerning the Solicitor-General is not trivial.
It represents a major attack on the independence of the Solicitor-General.
It puts at risk the quality of legal advice to Government departments and agencies as they develop policies, implement legislation and defend the Commonwealths legal interests.
The Minister whose job is to uphold the law has been exposed as flouting the law, by failing to comply with the Acts requirements to consult before making a legislative instrument.
And finally, the Attorney-General has been caught out breaching one of the most fundamental requirements of our democratic system of government, Ministerial accountability to the Parliament.
This matter started when Senator Brandis made an amendment to the Legal Services Directions in May.
The Directions set out rules and requirements for the performance of Commonwealth legal work.
Senator Brandiss amending Direction bars the Solicitor-General from providing legal opinions or advice to anyone in Government without the Attorney-Generals permission.
It prohibits any Commonwealth agency or officer from referring a question of law to the Solicitor-General without the written permission of the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis.
This is a blatant power grab.
It is a bid to control the flow of legal advice from the independent Solicitor-General to Government departments and to senior figures in the Government.
And remember just who is making this power grab.
The same Attorney-General who failed to seek advice from the Solicitor-General on the Constitutionality of a raft of amendments to the Governments foreign fighters citizenship legislation.
The same Attorney-General whose mishandling of Marriage Equality has been exacerbated by his failure to seek advice from the Solicitor-General about the Governments proposals at critical points in the process.
It appears that Senator Brandis seems to be of the view that the only legal opinion anyone could ever need is his opinion.
And he continues to fail to disclose fully the facts to this Senate. We saw that yesterday in Question Time when he was asked why he didnt make clear to the Senate in debate on the Citizenship Bill, that the Solicitor-General had not been asked to look at the Bill that was introduced, and again he obfuscated, he obfuscated.
Its quite clear from the Solicitor-Generals letter that the evidence he gives about his involvement is not what this Attorney-General said to this Chamber.
His actions demonstrate how monumentally arrogant and frankly deluded this Attorney-General has become.
The substance of the amendments to the Directions is bad enough.
But the Senator, the Attorney-General has also misled Parliament.
He told the Senate he had consulted the Solicitor-General over the amending Direction.
And he has said that repeatedly in a written explanatory statement and in answers to Opposition questions.
But the Solicitor-General says something quite different, completely different, he has made it clear he was never consulted by the Attorney-General.
And I will quote from his submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee:
Since the Direction was made, I have written to the Attorney-General and written to, and met with, the Secretary of the Attorney-Generals Department to ascertain why I was not consulted about the Direction. I have also taken steps to have the Direction withdrawn and for a proper consultation process to commence. All those steps to date have proved futile.
[A]ny consultation that may have occurred in relation to the Direction did not occur with me I had no advance knowledge that the Direction would be made, no notice of what would be in the Direction and no opportunity to put a submission to the Attorney-General or the Attorney-Generals Department as to my views on the legality or merits of the Direction.
He says:
I was not given an opportunity to comment on the content of the Direction.
And he says:
[T]here was no consultation with me at any time.
This could not be clearer.
This is an open and shut case of misleading the Senate.
And remember the substance of what is occurring is effectively a power grab, a power grab by this Attorney-General who wants to close off the avenues of independent advice that he may not like.
This is an open and shut case of misleading the Senate.
But regrettably, as I said, this is not the first time Senator Brandis has acted in this way.
The catalogue of misleading and deceptive conduct by Senator Brandis is a very lengthy document.
And it includes:
- Claiming to have consulted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda before establishing the Don Dale Royal Commission, when no such consultation has occurred.
- Giving the wrong information to Parliament about the letter to the Attorney-General from the Lindt caf gunman Man Haron Monis and, when made aware of this fact, delaying correcting the record for three days.
- Failing to defend another independent statutory office-holder, the President of the Human Rights Commission, from political attacks and bullying.
- Offering an inducement to the President of the Human Rights Commission to quit her position after the Commission issued a report criticising Government policy.
- Failing to seek advice from the Solicitor-General on a raft of amendments to the Foreign Fighters Citizenship Legislation.
- Breaching Cabinet rules by disclosing publicly the contents of a Cabinet debate on national security legislation.
- Seeking to remove the Racial Discrimination Acts protection against speech that offends, insults or humiliates people on the basis of their race.
- Recklessly freelancing on Australias policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict and East Jerusalem.
- Appointing a Liberal donor to the AAT and refusing to answer questions about the conflict of interest in making such appointments.
- Using taxpayer-funded travel entitlements to attend the wedding of a friend.
His track record is one of evasion, of slipperiness, of belligerence, of dishonesty and Im sure if you ask Senator Abetz, disloyalty.
It is time for this Attorney-General to go, before he does any more damage to the legal and political systems in this country.
He is now not only bringing himself into disrepute, he brings his office into disrepute, he brings his colleagues and he brings this government into disrepute.
If Senator Brandis doesnt have the decency to stand down, the Prime Minister should remove him.
Because it is the Prime Minister who now has to recognise he has an Attorney-General who is not trusted by the profession, and not trusted by the Australian community to be the first law officer of the land.
