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.
George Brandis dispute with solicitor general gets airing at Senate committee – politics live
Fiery scenes as solicitor general faces senators in Brandis row – politics live
(35 minutes later)
2.11am BST
02:11
The chair Louise Pratt notes the hearing is running over time and Brandis will have to be told he will appear 30 minutes later.
2.08am BST
02:08
Reynolds asserts that the SG is subject to the caretaker provisions.
Gleeson asks: is that an question or an answer?
Reynolds: please let me finish answering the question?
Watt: so you are answering a question?
Gleeson says his primary duty is to the statute and to be impartial during the caretaker period before the election. He says there has never been a time in history where an AG has made a statement to parliament the SG believes is inaccurate and then the parliament is dissolved.
He is trying to outline the history and the complexities.
Reynolds: Oh please.
Macdonald suggests if Gleeson wants to get into politics he should run for parliament.
Gleeson asks for his statement to be withdrawn as it was offensive.
Updated
at 2.08am BST
2.01am BST
02:01
In other news:
Before the Trump haters get too excited, some of his views are OTT but cutting tax and boosting defence are classic conservatism
2.00am BST
02:00
From AAP:
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull is confident the stoush between the attorney-general and the solicitor-general will be resolved eventually.As a Senate committee began an inquiry hearing into the public dispute between George Brandis and Justin Gleeson over controversial new legal advice rules, Mr Turnbull stressed the two were a team.“They support each other,” he told reporters in Canberra on Friday.“I am sure whatever differences or misunderstandings will be resolved.”Turnbull said it was important to remember the attorney general was the first law officer whom even he would turn to for advice in the first place.It was always appropriate for a prime minister to consult with the attorney general about seeking counsel from the second law officer.“It is inconceivable that the attorney general would say ‘No, I don’t want you to seek the advice of the solicitor general’,” Turnbull said.
1.59am BST
01:59
Gleeson said what he told Dreyfus was a question of fact (that he had not been consulted by Brandis on the direction) and a question of opinion (that he did not agree with it).
1.58am BST
01:58
Gleeson goes through it again with Reynolds.
He says on May 6, a statement [by Brandis] was made to the parliament that was inaccurate.
He says only two people knew that was inaccurate. [Gleeson and Brandis]
He had to comply with the law of Australia.
Gleeson said he was asked by Dreyfus two questions which he considered it was lawful to answer.
1.53am BST
01:53
Gleeson counters, saying he had written to the AG to say his statement was not accurate.
Gleeson considered as Dreyfus was a member of the 44th parliament to which the Brandis statement had been made, he was able to answer the two questions Dreyfus had asked.
Reynolds wants to know under which rules he could talk to an opposition member.
Gleeson he sent the full account to the secretary of the AG’s department. He quotes the section of the act.
Reynolds wants to question further but Gleeson asks her not to interrupt his answer.
The Liberal members accuse the chair of stopping them asking questions.
Updated
at 1.54am BST
1.49am BST
01:49
Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has been sent in to ask about the Dreyfus-Gleeson conversation. She points out it was in the caretaker mode in June, ahead of the election.
1.47am BST
01:47
Back to Labor now and Murray Watt asks about a meeting between Gleeson and Brandis. This goes to a difference on the citizenship bill that precipitated the present stoush.
Gleeson gave an opinion on the citizenship bill in a draft form.
Brandis subsequently used that opinion about the bill in parliament.
Gleeson said that advice referred to an earlier draft.
They held a meeting to work out the difference and how it might not happen again.
1.34am BST
1.34am BST
01:34
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.
It is extraordinary how abusive Ian Macdonald has been to Justin Gleeson. Gleeson is not taking a backwards step but it is extraordinary behaviour from a government senator, presumably workshopped and prepped on behalf of his party.
Updated
at 1.43am BST
1.32am BST
1.32am BST
01:32
01:32
Macdonald asks if it is appropriate to speak to anyone other than his client (being the AG).
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.
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.
Macdonald then asks he if knows how Financial Review journalist Laura Tingle wrote a “very informative article” about this matter.
Gleeson says no.
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
01:04
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
01:02
Gleeson is asked to describe the arrangements before the Brandis change of regulation.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
