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 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| George Brandis: it all depends on your definition of 'consultation' – politics live | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 3.56am BST | |
| 03:56 | |
| The consultation that occurred on November 30 was about “substance not form”, says Brandis. | |
| For example, what processes should be in place, rather than the form (of the direction). | |
| The person doing the consulting seeks the views of people and then decides on the course of action. | |
| When one consults someone, one asks their advice...that is what I mean when I use the word consult. | |
| Brandis uses the Oxford Dictionary and gives a copy of the definition to all the committee members. | |
| I think we’re right. | |
| 3.50am BST | |
| 03:50 | |
| The whole dispute boils down to the definition of consultation, says Brandis. Under the law, Brandis says, it is up to “the rule maker” to determine the consultation. | |
| That is, moi. | |
| 3.47am BST | |
| 03:47 | |
| A-G says he didnt respond to S-G's letter of complaint during election campaign because govt was in caretaker mode. Delegated to Dept sec. | |
| 3.46am BST | |
| 03:46 | |
| Brandis denies the fact that he refused to engage with Gleeson on the direction. He says he wrote in August this year to Gleeson. | |
| The attorney general stands by every word of his submission and every statement he has made (including in the Senate). | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.47am BST | |
| 3.41am BST | |
| 03:41 | |
| Brandis says Gleeson was not constrained by his direction on recent advice | |
| Brandis says Gleeson was not constrained by his direction on recent advice because the request had come from Brandis himself. | |
| (Which would suggest he did not go to Brandis for permission.) | |
| These were questions relating to the composition of the Senate. Brandis said in an email Gleeson had said he was “content” with the questions. | |
| (Which would suggest he was happy to go ahead.) | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.46am BST | |
| 3.39am BST | |
| 03:39 | |
| Brandis: Gleeson should have sought permission to reveal advice | |
| Gleeson did not seek Brandis consent that advice on the composition of the Senate had been sought within the government. | |
| Brandis said he should have sought advice. | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.40am BST | |
| 3.37am BST | |
| 03:37 | |
| Brandis: Gleeson should have told him he spoke to Mark Dreyfus | |
| George Brandis is up now. | |
| He says Gleeson should have told him about his conversation with Mark Dreyfus. | |
| Brandis says he is shocked by the conversation. | |
| I cannot imagine why Mr Gleeson chose not to reveal his dealings with the opposition. | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.39am BST | |
| 3.35am BST | |
| 03:35 | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.38am BST | |
| 3.32am BST | |
| 03:32 | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.37am BST | |
| 3.28am BST | |
| 03:28 | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.37am BST | |
| 3.26am BST | |
| 03:26 | |
| Paul Karp | |
| The solicitor general, Justin Gleeson, has revealed he has ignored George Brandis’s direction to seek consent before giving legal advice because he regarded it as invalid. | |
| In a parliamentary committee hearing on Friday, Gleeson said he had decided to ignore the direction in order to give urgent legal advice about the composition of the Senate sought from him this week. | |
| He also revealed that the prime minister had sought advice from him in January which was confidential and did not go through the attorney general. Gleeson did not reveal the legal issue in question but raised it as an example where seeking Brandis’s consent would not be appropriate. | |
| In a fiery committee hearing the deputy chair, Ian Macdonald, cut off Gleeson’s answers and subjected him to aggressive questions about why he had revealed disagreements with the attorney general about legal advice and told the shadow attorney general he had not been consulted about the direction. | |
| Gleeson described Brandis’s direction as “a radical change in practice” that had caused him to “lie awake at night” since it was made on 5 May. The direction made running his office “exceptionally difficult”, and imposed a condition on him not faced by any solicitor general for 100 years, he said. | |
| He also revealed that on Thursday a senior lawyer in the Australian government solicitor sought urgent advice about the composition of the Senate. The request contained questions raised by the attorney general but was not accompanied with consent. | |
| “Yesterday I was faced with situation where I would have to say ‘Go away – you don’t have a consent,’ ” he said. | |
| “I have come to the view that the direction is invalid.” | |
| He explained it prevented him from giving legal advice to other parts of the commonwealth government when acting as counsel, a duty under the Law Officers Act, without the attorney general’s consent. | |
| Gleeson said he decided to meet the AGS lawyer in defiance of the direction to begin work on a legal opinion, as the matter was urgent and that is what an efficient counsel would do. | |
| He acknowledged that ignoring the direction could result in Brandis seeking an injunction to prevent him providing advice without consent. The direction is likely to be struck down by the Senate after 8 November, when the committee reports. | |
| The solicitor general revealed that when contacted by the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, in June during the caretaker period, Gleeson said that he believed he had not been consulted about the direction and he did not agree with it. | |
| Gleeson said the Law Officers Act meant he had a legal duty to do so. It was proper because the direction was a major policy decision, had required Brandis to certify he had consulted Gleeson, and Gleeson had already warned he did not believe he had been. | |
| Gleeson said that he wrote to the attorney general and his department before the election to have the direction withdrawn but Brandis said he would not discuss it until after the election. | |
| “The attorney general has refused to engage with me on this topic despite knowing my concerns,” he said, adding one would expect a substantive response. | |
| If the 2 July election had produced a hung parliament, the direction would mean the second law officer would need to seek consent from the attorney general before giving advice to the governor general, Gleeson said. | |
| Brandis maintains that he did consult Gleeson at a meeting on 30 November at which the pair discussed the procedure for providing advice, but Gleeson said the attorney general did not seek the solicitor general’s opinion before making the binding direction. | |
| Gleeson testified that a public statement Brandis made about the constitutionality of the government’s citizenship bill neglected to include his qualifications to the opinion, and quoted his advice on an earlier version of the bill, not the one presented to parliament. | |
| “The bill, as introduced on 23 June [2015] … contained two elements I had never been asked to advise on: about ministerial discretion, and the abolition of any requirement of natural justice,” he said. | |
| Gleeson explained that constitutional advice should be sought from the solicitor general because he or she has access to confidential legal advice provided to the commonwealth over a century and would have to defend legislation in court. | |
| Updated | |
| at 3.35am BST | |
| 3.14am BST | 3.14am BST |
| 03:14 | 03:14 |
| Gleeson says he has tried to talk to the AG about the matter. | Gleeson says he has tried to talk to the AG about the matter. |
| After the election, Gleeson wrote on 16 July to Brandis and received no response. | After the election, Gleeson wrote on 16 July to Brandis and received no response. |
| The attorney general has refused to engage with me on this topic despite knowing the detail of my concerns. | The attorney general has refused to engage with me on this topic despite knowing the detail of my concerns. |
| O’Sullivan says given Gleeson has tried to avoid politics, he must have known by talking to Dreyfus he would create “a political shit storm”. | O’Sullivan says given Gleeson has tried to avoid politics, he must have known by talking to Dreyfus he would create “a political shit storm”. |
| Chaos ensues. | Chaos ensues. |
| Gleeson says: | Gleeson says: |
| I thought the right thing to do was to answer honestly that question. | I thought the right thing to do was to answer honestly that question. |
| (Here is the difference between traditional bureaucracy and modern politics. And this whole exercise must chill young public servants to the bone.) | (Here is the difference between traditional bureaucracy and modern politics. And this whole exercise must chill young public servants to the bone.) |
| The committee breaks. | The committee breaks. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 3.18am BST | at 3.18am BST |
| 3.07am BST | 3.07am BST |
| 03:07 | 03:07 |
| I will do a summary in the short break between Gleeson and Brandis, which was due over an hour ago. | I will do a summary in the short break between Gleeson and Brandis, which was due over an hour ago. |
| 3.07am BST | 3.07am BST |
| 03:07 | 03:07 |
| O’Sullivan asks about “human interaction” with Gleeson over the past weeks. | O’Sullivan asks about “human interaction” with Gleeson over the past weeks. |
| Gleeson says people have made comments about the matter but any questions on that would be outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. | Gleeson says people have made comments about the matter but any questions on that would be outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. |
| O’Sullivan wants to know if any inquiries to him were from MPs or the media. | O’Sullivan wants to know if any inquiries to him were from MPs or the media. |
| No and no. | No and no. |