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/2016/nov/08/george-brandis-is-unfit-to-be-attorney-general-parliamentary-committee-finds
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| George Brandis is unfit to be attorney general, parliamentary committee finds George Brandis is unfit to be attorney general, parliamentary committee finds | |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| George Brandis failed to consult the solicitor general before issuing a direction giving control over access to his advice, and lacks the competence to be attorney general, a parliamentary committee has found. | George Brandis failed to consult the solicitor general before issuing a direction giving control over access to his advice, and lacks the competence to be attorney general, a parliamentary committee has found. |
| In a report tabled on Tuesday, the opposition-controlled legal and constitutional affairs references committee said the attorney general should be censured for misleading the Senate and recommended it tear up the direction. | In a report tabled on Tuesday, the opposition-controlled legal and constitutional affairs references committee said the attorney general should be censured for misleading the Senate and recommended it tear up the direction. |
| The government has labelled the committee’s conclusions baseless and partisan in a dissenting report that accused Labor of destroying the career of the former solicitor general Justin Gleeson. | The government has labelled the committee’s conclusions baseless and partisan in a dissenting report that accused Labor of destroying the career of the former solicitor general Justin Gleeson. |
| The report is the culmination of a public spat between Brandis and Gleeson, who first contradicted Brandis’s claim he had consulted him, ignored the direction claiming it was invalid, then resigned under a flurry of criticism from the Coalition for allegedly politicising his office. | The report is the culmination of a public spat between Brandis and Gleeson, who first contradicted Brandis’s claim he had consulted him, ignored the direction claiming it was invalid, then resigned under a flurry of criticism from the Coalition for allegedly politicising his office. |
| The direction required requests for the solicitor general’s advice to be accompanied by the written consent of the attorney general, even where they came from the prime minister or governor general and were confidential. | The direction required requests for the solicitor general’s advice to be accompanied by the written consent of the attorney general, even where they came from the prime minister or governor general and were confidential. |
| Brandis claimed he had consulted Gleeson at a 30 November meeting about the process of seeking advice. But in evidence to the committee, Brandis conceded he did not indicate to Gleeson he was considering a binding direction before he made it on 4 May, but rather discussed a guidance note in identical words at the meeting. | Brandis claimed he had consulted Gleeson at a 30 November meeting about the process of seeking advice. But in evidence to the committee, Brandis conceded he did not indicate to Gleeson he was considering a binding direction before he made it on 4 May, but rather discussed a guidance note in identical words at the meeting. |
| The committee concluded Brandis’s actions were a “gross infringement” on the independence of the solicitor general and “call into question the professional integrity and judgment of the attorney general”. | The committee concluded Brandis’s actions were a “gross infringement” on the independence of the solicitor general and “call into question the professional integrity and judgment of the attorney general”. |
| Its report said the “lack of respect” that Brandis had shown Gleeson and the state of their relationship “demonstrates his lack of competence to hold the office of attorney general”. | Its report said the “lack of respect” that Brandis had shown Gleeson and the state of their relationship “demonstrates his lack of competence to hold the office of attorney general”. |
| The committee concluded Brandis misled parliament by stating he had consulted the solicitor general in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the direction. | The committee concluded Brandis misled parliament by stating he had consulted the solicitor general in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the direction. |
| “The fact that the attorney general continues to assert that he has acted appropriately and has taken no steps to correct the record, or amend the direction, in spite of the overwhelming contradictory view of experts regarding the impact of the direction on the rule of law, provides further evidence that he should be discharged from his responsibilities.” | “The fact that the attorney general continues to assert that he has acted appropriately and has taken no steps to correct the record, or amend the direction, in spite of the overwhelming contradictory view of experts regarding the impact of the direction on the rule of law, provides further evidence that he should be discharged from his responsibilities.” |
| In tabling the report the committee’s chair senator, Louise Pratt, said that Brandis’s definition of consultation was “fanciful” and suggested it was as self-serving as Humpty Dumpty’s dictum that “when I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”. | In tabling the report the committee’s chair senator, Louise Pratt, said that Brandis’s definition of consultation was “fanciful” and suggested it was as self-serving as Humpty Dumpty’s dictum that “when I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”. |
| She noted the Oxford English Dictionary definition Brandis had tendered in evidence included the possibility “consult” could mean to consult oneself, but the law required he consult “with the solicitor general”. | She noted the Oxford English Dictionary definition Brandis had tendered in evidence included the possibility “consult” could mean to consult oneself, but the law required he consult “with the solicitor general”. |
| Consultation must be about a proposed instrument, and the legal services direction was not proposed or contemplated at the 30 November meeting, she said. | Consultation must be about a proposed instrument, and the legal services direction was not proposed or contemplated at the 30 November meeting, she said. |
| Pratt noted the committee found Gleeson concluded the direction was “wrong in law”, and that the disagreement about its legality could have been avoided if proper consultation had taken place. | Pratt noted the committee found Gleeson concluded the direction was “wrong in law”, and that the disagreement about its legality could have been avoided if proper consultation had taken place. |
| Gleeson’s two chief antagonists on the committee, senators Ian MacDonald and Barry O’Sullivan both spoke in defence of the attorney general. | Gleeson’s two chief antagonists on the committee, senators Ian MacDonald and Barry O’Sullivan both spoke in defence of the attorney general. |
| MacDonald criticised Gleeson for revealing to the committee on 14 October that the government had asked for urgent legal advice about the composition of the Senate. | MacDonald criticised Gleeson for revealing to the committee on 14 October that the government had asked for urgent legal advice about the composition of the Senate. |
| He said the committee was “renowned for the inappropriateness of its inquiries ... because they are always political inquiries”. | He said the committee was “renowned for the inappropriateness of its inquiries ... because they are always political inquiries”. |
| O’Sullivan told the Senate that Gleeson had been consulted about the guidance note on the same issue, and his views on it were reflected when Brandis made the binding direction. | O’Sullivan told the Senate that Gleeson had been consulted about the guidance note on the same issue, and his views on it were reflected when Brandis made the binding direction. |
| In a statement the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, who has already called for Brandis to resign, said the report confirmed the government’s “gross mistreatment” of Gleeson and that Brandis “is not fit to hold the office of attorney general”. | In a statement the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, who has already called for Brandis to resign, said the report confirmed the government’s “gross mistreatment” of Gleeson and that Brandis “is not fit to hold the office of attorney general”. |
| Labor and the Greens have determined that the direction should be torn up and that Brandis should be censured. | Labor and the Greens have determined that the direction should be torn up and that Brandis should be censured. |
| The Nick Xenophon Team supports the move to disallow the direction, which is likely to succeed, but does not support the censure, which is likely to fail. | The Nick Xenophon Team supports the move to disallow the direction, which is likely to succeed, but does not support the censure, which is likely to fail. |
| Explaining the party’s position on 25 October, Xenophon said Labor had overreached by calling for Brandis’s resignation because “clearly there was consultation although it wasn’t very satisfactory from the solicitor general’s point of view”. | Explaining the party’s position on 25 October, Xenophon said Labor had overreached by calling for Brandis’s resignation because “clearly there was consultation although it wasn’t very satisfactory from the solicitor general’s point of view”. |
| The Greens senator Nick McKim told the Senate on Tuesday the inquiry demonstrated the need for a select committee to consider government claims of public interest immunity over documents, because Brandis had released a much more heavily redacted version of his correspondence than the one provided by Gleeson. | The Greens senator Nick McKim told the Senate on Tuesday the inquiry demonstrated the need for a select committee to consider government claims of public interest immunity over documents, because Brandis had released a much more heavily redacted version of his correspondence than the one provided by Gleeson. |
| He said the Greens agreed that Brandis’s construction of consultation was not reasonable. | He said the Greens agreed that Brandis’s construction of consultation was not reasonable. |