Attorney General Brandis is likely to survive this latest manifestation of his ineptitude … Control freak attorney general damaged … Parliamentary committee a circus … Solicitor General Gleeson assisted by the performance of Coalition warthogs … Legal Services Direction faces revocation … SNAFU 

MOST of the Canberra cognoscenti agree that Gorgeous George Brandis will survive the sorry experience of lying to parliament. Survive, in the sense of staying on as tattered and tawdry version of an attorney general. 

However, his legal services directive, that seeks to lock solicitor general Justin Gleeson in the broom cupboard, looks as though it will be squelched by the senate after the legal and constitutional affairs reference committee reports on November 8.  

There were enough senators to set-up the reference into whether the attorney misled parliament and it’s likely there’ll be enough to overturn his cack-handed directive. In any event, as the solicitor general and others assert, it is invalid and in breach of the Law Officers Act. 

In the end Gorgeous George would have come full circle only to have his “instrument” disappear up his fundament. 

The reference committee interrogation of the SG and the AG didn’t take us very far, being primarily a show for politicians to scratch off their fleas in public. The overfed Coalition senators from the boondocks did their bit and were conspicuous for their aggression and clumsiness. 

Senator Ian Macdonald (Lib. Qld.) was stuffing biscuits in his face while trying to get his thoughts together. In the time honoured way he, and his terrible twin, Barry O’Sullivan (Nat. Qld.), had been briefed on what to ask Gleeson by Soapy Brandis and his office, just as they had with the appalling inquisition of Gillian Triggs in 2015. 

Their performance ensured that Gleeson was the reasonable human in the room as he manoeuvred his answers carefully through the thicket of bullying. We are not the only ones to think that the Coalition interlocutors came off the worse for wear, as you can see here and here.  

Over-blown indignation was heaped on the revelation that Gleeson has spoken to shadow AG Mark Dreyfus during the caretaker period. In response to Dreyfus’ questions Gleeson said he had not been told about the legal services directive and did not support it. 

There was more faux dismay with the news that Gleeson had decided to ignore the directive to obtain the AG’s written consent before drafting an urgent opinion sought by AGS about the composition of the senate, an issue that looks as though it is heading to the High Court. 

The Coalition beefcakes thundered. How dare the solicitor general speak to Dreyfus without the AG’s permission. How dare he reveal information about advice on the composition of the senate. 

Soapy himself said he was “shocked”, and this from one shocker of an attorney general. 

The job of the Coalition flat-foots was to try to deflect attention from the central issues – what was the purpose of Brandis’ legal service direction affecting the independence and functions of the solicitor general; why didn’t he discuss it properly with the SG, as he is legislatively required to do; and why did he lie to the parliament in claiming Gleeson had been consulted?  

On the other side of the table Labor senator Murray Watt was endeavouring to feed Gleeson morsels he thought would help him skewer Brandis. The solicitor general wouldn’t have a bar of it, saying he was not there to make “evaluative” comments about the attorney general’s conduct. 

He didn’t need to. The facts were evaluative enough. He also distanced himself from former solicitor general Gavan Griffith’s colourful criticisms of the legal services direction. 

Gleeson’s performance was edgy and at times prickly, telling senators not to interrupt him and not letting them reinterpret his answers. Ultimately, he adopted a slow and quiet manner, which was the perfect foil to the snarls and snarks from the Coalition hayseeds. 

Brandis was characteristically puffed and florid, but managed to get through the softball questions without making more of a hash of it. 

The AG’s claim is that not only did he consult but he was implementing the work changes that Gleeson requested. 

To get to that improbable contention he selectively extracted bits from Gleeson’s letter of November 12, 2015 in which the SG requested a meeting with the attorney about improving the coordination between departments, agencies and his office for the provision of advice.  

It was the first of a series of dishonesties by Brandis, because he then went on to claim that the binding direction was to give effect to the discussions of November 30, 2015, whereas in fact the meeting was primarily concerned with aspects of coordination and Gleeson’s objections that the AG and the PM claimed in parliament that the amended Citizenship Act would withstand a High Court challenge. 

Gleeson had not been permitted to advise on the final version of the citizenship stripping amendments. 

Brandis is one appalling attorney general, unable to shake-off his deep seated nastiness.  A likely outcome from all this is that following findings by the committee adverse to Brandis, he is likely to be the subject of a senate vote of no confidence. The second such vote reflecting on this attorney’s honesty, character and capacity. A rare achievement.