This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/oct/14/george-brandis-to-appear-at-senate-committee-over-solicitor-general-politics-live
The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| George Brandis dispute with solicitor general gets airing at Senate committee – politics live | George Brandis dispute with solicitor general gets airing at Senate committee – politics live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 1.34am BST | |
| 01:34 | |
| It is extraordinary how abusive Ian Macdonald has been to Justin Gleeson. Gleeson is not taking a backward step but it is extraordinary behaviour from a government senator, presumably workshopped and prepped on behalf of his party. | |
| 1.32am BST | |
| 01:32 | |
| Macdonald asks if it is appropriate to speak to anyone other than his client (being the AG). | |
| Gleeson says on the matter of the regulation, he is representing the commonwealth. | |
| Macdonald then asks he if knows how Financial Review journalist Laura Tingle wrote a “very informative article” about this matter. | |
| Gleeson says no. | |
| 1.31am BST | |
| 01:31 | |
| Macdonald asks if Gleeson has spoken to anyone else about the matter since November 2015. | |
| He says he has spoken to Brandis. He has also spoken to Dreyfus in a brief conversation. | |
| He says the Labor shadow contacted him and asked: | |
| Had I been consulted, I said no. | |
| Did I support the direction, I said no. | |
| 1.27am BST | |
| 01:27 | |
| Gleeson asks the committee to consider striking the reference to his daughter from the record, given she is not involved at all. | |
| 1.26am BST | |
| 01:26 | |
| Macdonald has now has drawn in law professor Gabrielle Appleby, who has written a book on the role of a solicitor general. Appleby has been supportive of the SG’s case. Macdonald draws in Gleeson’s daughter. | |
| Professor Appleby, by the way, is a very good friend of your daughter’s, she told us in evidence the other day. Can I quote to you from her book ... | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.37am BST | |
| 1.24am BST | |
| 01:24 | |
| Macdonald wants to know who owns the advice. | |
| Then he asks about whether he can talk about advice asked for by others, ie Gleeson mentioned the prime minister asking him for urgent advice. | |
| Essentially Macdonald is trying to paint Gleeson as engaging in inappropriate behaviour by telling the committee about cases on which he has provided advice. | |
| Gleeson keeps trying to answer and Macdonald fires up. | |
| Please don’t interrupt me, says Gleeson. | |
| You are here to answer questions not to go off on a tangent of your own. My question was is it appropriate for you ... , says Macdonald. | |
| Senator Macdonald (calls the chair.) | |
| Was it appropriate for you to tell the world, true a Senate committee which you knew politically would end up in this, that had given advice on same-sex marriage and the Migration Act, is that appropriate? Macdonald asks … | |
| I don’t accept the premises of your question, my conduct was appropriate. I will explain why if you wish to allow me ... | |
| Macdonald is called to behave by the chair. | |
| Senator MacDonald. Pause for a moment. I need to remind you of privilege resolution one. Your dealings with witnesses need to be conducted with respect and courtesy, says the chair, Pratt. | |
| I always give witnesses the respect they deserve, madam chair. | |
| There is an audible gasp from the room. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.36am BST | |
| 1.13am BST | |
| 01:13 | |
| Senator Ian Macdonald is being very combative. Gleeson fires back. Macdonald wants to know whether he is a barrister. Gleeson tries to answer and Macdonald is essentially badgering the witness. | |
| Gleeson: | |
| You’re interrupting me. | |
| Macdonald: | |
| Oh spare me. You have agreed to appear to answer questions. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.35am BST | |
| 1.11am BST | |
| 01:11 | |
| SG calls Brandis direction 'radical' and he has ignored it | |
| Gleeson lets loose. He had a case yesterday where he could not action an urgent advice for a senior government lawyer. | |
| He says the direction is unprecedented. | |
| What is currently contained in the direction issued on 4 May has never previously existed between attorney general and solicitor general in Australia since 1916. | |
| It is a radical change in the practice, whereby a solicitor general can do nothing, cannot even speak to a lawyer until he has received a brief with a signed consent. | |
| If I may explain why there is such a radical change, a senior lawyer from the Australian government came to my office yesterday, seeking my urgent advice on a high court proceeding which has questions of law attached to it, which relates to the composition of this Senate. | |
| Essentially Gleeson says he ignored the Brandis direction in order to carry out his duties. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.35am BST | |
| 1.04am BST | 1.04am BST |
| 01:04 | 01:04 |
| In the more unusual cases, the SG provides advice directly such as this one Gleeson outlined: | In the more unusual cases, the SG provides advice directly such as this one Gleeson outlined: |
| I was requested by the PM in January of this year to provide advice on a matter which I won’t mention but a matter which was relevant to this nation this year. I accepted that request for advice under section 12A. I provided the advice confidentially to the PM. As far as I know a copy of that advice sits only in my files and the PM’s office. The PM may have shared that advice with the attorney general. I am not aware whether he did or didn’t. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.34am BST | |
| 1.02am BST | 1.02am BST |
| 01:02 | 01:02 |
| Gleeson is asked to describe the arrangements before the Brandis change of regulation. | |
| It was a “triaging” operation. | It was a “triaging” operation. |
| Through that process, I identified if the matter was worthy of an opinion, I wrote a brief letter to the attorney general to inform him for the reasons I have mentioned earlier, that I was proposing to provide that opinion. In most cases, with very few exceptions, I received no answer from the attorney general. I took his silence as consent. In most cases, I provided a copy of that opinion to him, so he had the ability to consider whether he regarded it as a correct one or not. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.33am BST | |
| 1.00am BST | 1.00am BST |
| 01:00 | 01:00 |
| Gleeson makes the point that the SG is independent, the independence is in the statute, that should not be messed with, but the AG has to take responsibility for everything done by the SG and every other government lawyer. | Gleeson makes the point that the SG is independent, the independence is in the statute, that should not be messed with, but the AG has to take responsibility for everything done by the SG and every other government lawyer. |
| The position I see the attorney general in is one where we should be having a complementary relationship to assist the executive and occasionally the parliament to remain within the rule of law. | |
| Updated | |
| at 1.33am BST | |
| 12.58am BST | 12.58am BST |
| 00:58 | 00:58 |
| Gleeson says it is the SG who spends all day every day considering advice and the AG does not have that luxury of time but the AG is responsible to the parliament. | Gleeson says it is the SG who spends all day every day considering advice and the AG does not have that luxury of time but the AG is responsible to the parliament. |
| He says as a result, sometimes the SG’s opinion is regarded by an AG as incorrect. | He says as a result, sometimes the SG’s opinion is regarded by an AG as incorrect. |
| It is unusual but it happens, he says. When it does, the AG can countermand the SG’s opinion. That becomes the legal opinion of the government followed by everyone including the SG until the high court says otherwise. | It is unusual but it happens, he says. When it does, the AG can countermand the SG’s opinion. That becomes the legal opinion of the government followed by everyone including the SG until the high court says otherwise. |