Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 11 October 2016
Page: 1433

Attorney-General


Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:03): Thank you, Senator Brandis, for those kind words. I am not sure how long it is going last—I will put the next question! I am pleased to say that, not only do I have friends on that side, I also have an awful lot of friends on this side.

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General's statement in the Senate on 1 December 2015, during the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, in which he said:

These changes have been reviewed by the Solicitor-General and he has now advised that they have a good prospect of being upheld by the High Court.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the assurance from him led senators in this place to believe that the bill, as introduced, has been reviewed by the Solicitor-General?


Senator BRANDIS (QueenslandAttorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): Thank you, Senator Farrell. I do remember the statement and I stand by it. As you will recall, the bill went through many iterations. The Solicitor-General provided advice, both written and orally, at various times throughout and his views informed the drafting of the bill. As you know, the government does not release its legal advice. I did make the statement to the Senate that you have quoted and I stand by it.


Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:04): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Solicitor-General's letter to the Attorney-General dated 12 November 2015, in which he said that the bill in question 'reflected new changes that were made without seeking my further advice' and, further, that the statements about the Solicitor-General having advised on the bill were inaccurate. How does the Attorney-General reconcile his unqualified assurance to the Senate with the written advice from the Solicitor-General 19 days earlier?


Senator BRANDIS (QueenslandAttorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): As I said in answer to your primary question, this bill evolved through many iterations. The Solicitor-General was involved. From time to time during the course of those iterations, I was asked questions in relation to the Solicitor-General's involvement and I acquainted those who inquired of me what it was. That includes the statement that you have quoted, which I stand by.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.



Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (14:05): Senator Brandis, is this just another example of you being slippery with the facts?


Senator BRANDIS (QueenslandAttorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:05): Senator Farrell, as you know, the government does not release legal advice. But I stand by every statement I have made in relation to the Solicitor-General's advice.