Justin Gleeson he opines, but his opines don’t quite suit mine
His independence? Unimpeded! It’s just his view that is not needed
I’m the Attorney. I’ll decide, whose opines to over-ride
My position? Much more deserving. I’m his master, it’s me he’s serving
Make no mistake, I am in charge. Advice from Justin? No, not at large
Through my gate you must first pass, and I’ll determine who can ask
I’ll outsource questions to my mates, to get the answer my view mandates
Don’t give me grief about this matter, I work much better without the chatter
Separation of powers, just what is that? If that’s a concept, it’s old hat
Circumvention? That’s not my word. Beyond my powers? That’s absurd
Let’s just get the view we need, the view want just to succeed
Statutory independence? It just impedes my own ascendance
Attorney General Brandis asserts political influence over Solicitor General Justin Gleeson … Government access to the Solicitor General to be controlled by AG … More outsourcing of constitutional advise to the private bar … Ideological agenda at play
Attorney General George Brandis is making a concerted assault on the independence of the Commonwealth Solicitor General, Justin Gleeson SC.
It is the latest in a series of actions Brandis has taken to politicise independent functions within his portfolio.
His move to contain the legal opinions prepared by the Solicitor General is a serious threat to the functions of Gleeson’s statutory office.
On May 6 Brandis issued a legal services direction under section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act saying that no government minister, Commonwealth department or agency can seek advice from the Solicitor General without the written consent of the Attorney General.
This is the upshot over simmering disagreements about legal advice prepared by Gleeson that does not suit Brandis’ agenda.
Brandis has also circumvented the SG on occasions by outsourcing to the private bar advice sought by the Commonwealth.
The recent legal opinion to the Governor General on the use of section 5 of the Constitution to prorogue parliament for two dayts over a weekend, in order to purge the Senate notice paper, is an example of outsourced legal advice.
The claim that proroguing parliament in this manner was perfectly normal procedure was not written by Gleeson nor, it is understood, did he agree with it.
See more here
Brandis is both circumventing advice from the SG and at the same time controlling who can seek that advice.
Once the attorney general becomes the gatekeeper to the SG and the legal issues in contention, he can then decide what to farm-out to ideologically friendly silks at the private bar, or keep in-house.
It is also understood from Canberra sources that Brandis has told colleagues that Justin Gleeson has no objection to these developments – something that is quite untrue.
Brandis has long been regarded as unworthy of the office of AG, and this development puts that notion beyond doubt.
There have been other disagreements between the AG and SG, including the High Court’s same sex marriage case in 2013, and later the drafting of legislation for the same sex marriage plebiscite.
There was also disagreement over Gleeson’s advice on government legislation to strip people of their citizenship.
The Western Australian legislation in relation to the Bell Group litigation has been another sticking point. It appears that the Commonwealth government (Brandis) was quite content to let the WA government take control of the Bell Group’s spoils and to manage its distribution.
Strangely, it did not support the ATO’s litigation against Bell, where millions of dollars of taxation was at stake.
In any event, the High Court last month found the WA legislation unconstitutional.
On occasions the solicitor general has managed to avoid the attorney, instead being directly briefed by Prime Minister Turnbull.
Brandis’ office also offers an implausible explanation for restricting government access to the solicitor general – it was done to “clarify the procedure for briefing and taking advice from the solicitor general”.
“There was uncertainty in government about the procedure for briefing the solicitor general and the nature of the matters that were appropriate to be briefed to the solicitor general. In particular, there was uncertainty as to the circumstances in which advice should be sought from the Australian Government Solicitor or the Solicitor General.”
Since the new arrangement only makes access to the SG less certain, it can only be assumed that the actual purpose of the legal services direction is to enable Brandis to corral Gleeson’s independence.
Brandis also sought to contain the independence of the main arts funding body, the Australia Council, by reallocation a large part of its funding back to the Arts Department where, as Arts Minister at the time, he could have great control over which organisations should be supported.
We’ve also recently seen him politicising formal judicial occasions, such as retirements and welcomes for federal judges. For instance, he allowed the Coalition member for the marginal seat of Capricornia (a non-lawyer) to sit at the bar table and make a speech littered with mispronounciations at the ceremony to mark Judge Demack’s sittings as a Federal Circuit Court judge in Rockhampton.