|
senate vote 2015-03-02#1
Edited by
Matthew Landauer staff
on
2015-03-03 17:11:40
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>by leave—I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate censures the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) for:</p>- That the Senate censures the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) for:
- 1. failing to defend the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, from malicious attacks;
- 2. seeking to obtain the resignation of Professor Triggs by facilitating the offer of an alternative role that would have required her to relinquish her position as President;
- 3. refusing to fully account for his conduct when appearing before a committee of the Senate;
- 4. undermining Australia's commitment to upholding human rights; and
- 5. being unfit to hold the office of Attorney-General.
<p class="italic">(1) failing to defend the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, from malicious attacks;</p><p class="italic">(2) seeking to obtain—</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>On a point of order, Mr President: I would have thought the decent thing, with a censure motion, would have been to circulate it so that the person who is the butt of the censure motion at least has the wording of it available to enable him or her to know what they may need to be defending themselves against.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>It is always desirable to have things circulated in advance, but Senator Wong has only just commenced her opening remarks. Senator Wong, you are in order.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I understand the motion is being circulated. I will read it and there will be time in the debate, I am sure, for Senator Brandis to acquaint himself with these matters. I will go back to the beginning of the motion. I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate censures the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) for:</p><p class="italic">(1) failing to defend the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, from malicious attacks;</p><p class="italic">(2) seeking to obtain the resignation of Professor Triggs by facilitating the offer of an alternative role that would have required her to relinquish her position as President;</p><p class="italic">(3) refusing to fully account for his conduct when appearing before a committee of the Senate;</p><p class="italic">(4) undermining Australia's commitment to upholding human rights; and</p><p class="italic">(5) being unfit to hold the office of Attorney-General.</p><p>The opposition understands that a censure motion against a minister is no small thing, and we do not move to censure the first law officer of this nation lightly, but we are moving to censure the Attorney-General because his conduct towards the Australian Human Rights Commission has been deplorable. There is no other word for it.</p><p>This man, this Attorney, has directly attacked the independence of a senior statutory office holder within his own portfolio. He has tried to pressure the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission into resigning from her position—but not because of any wrongdoing and not because of any inappropriate action on her part or on the part of the commission. In fact, the Attorney-General has tried to pressure Professor Triggs into resigning precisely because she was doing her job—an important job in a free and democratic Australia, a society that respects human rights and the rule of law.</p><p>Fellow senators, recall that this parliament, our predecessors, legislated to establish the Australian Human Rights Commission to act as an independent body—I emphasise 'independent'—to monitor human rights in Australia. That function includes reporting, and at times criticising, governments past and present. For nearly 30 years the commission has carried out that role without fear or favour. Its actions and its public statements have not always been convenient for governments. Over the years it has criticised the policies of both Labor governments and Liberal governments. Yet never before has a government reacted to this criticism so viciously and so personally.</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p><p>I note the interjections by both the Attorney-General and Senator Macdonald yet again fail to acknowledge that the commission's report on this occasion criticises governments of both political persuasions—criticises us as well as the coalition. But there is only one side of politics that has chosen to attack the independence of this commission. Never before has a government launched a full-frontal political assault on the integrity and standing of Australia's Human Rights Commission. Never before has an Attorney-General not only failed to defend the institution but actively joined in the attack by pressuring the president of the commission into quitting.</p><p>If one looks at the institutions, the organisations and the individuals who have criticised this Attorney, it demonstrates and brings home to all the seriousness and gravity of the errors of this Attorney-General. Back in January, we saw legal scholars come out in support of Professor Triggs—even prior to the report being tabled—given the criticisms of her which had already occurred. A range of eminent legal scholars from across the country came out to support her. We have seen—and I had never seen this before—the Attorney-General's conduct criticised by the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia. Their doing so demonstrates the concern the legal community has with the actions—and the inaction—of the first law officer of this land.</p><p>I refer also to Professor Ben Saul, professor of international law at the University of Sydney, who has been highly critical of the Attorney-General. We have seen the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, an international organisation, write an open letter to all senators and members in relation to this matter. We have seen the President of the New South Wales Bar Association, Jay Needham SC, being highly critical of the actions of the Attorney-General. In addition, Brian Burdekin, the very first Human Rights Commissioner—</p><p class="italic">Senator Brandis interjecting—</p><p>Yet again I will take the interjection from the Attorney-General, because with every interjection this man demonstrates why he is unfit to hold this office. Yet again he is engaging in a personal attack on Professor Saul and on Brian Burdekin, the first President of the Human Rights Commission of this nation. In addition Graeme Innes, the former Disability Discrimination Commissioner, has been critical of the actions of the Attorney-General. The rollcall of shame, the rollcall of those who are critical of this government and this Attorney-General, demonstrates why the Senate ought censure the Attorney-General.</p><p>The reaction of the Abbott government to the commission's report, <i>The forgotten children</i>, gives us an insight into the psyche of this dysfunctional government. It is a psyche permeated by bullying and by cowardice. From the bully-in-chief in the Prime Minister's office, to his lieutenant Senator Brandis and all the way through to the Senate's own Crabbe and Goyle, Senator Macdonald and Senator O'Sullivan, we see bullying behaviour and, frankly, cowardly behaviour.</p><p>The opening sentence of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards says:</p><p class="italic">Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety.</p><p>It goes on to say:</p><p class="italic">… it is vital that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence in them and in the government.</p><p>In his treatment of the Human Rights Commission, the Attorney-General has not conducted himself in a manner that reflects high standards of integrity and propriety.</p><p>This Attorney-General has failed to defend the commission from political attacks, he has attacked the independence of the commission, he has tried to force the president into resigning, he has sought to procure that resignation by offering an alternative position and he has placed the secretary of his department in an invidious position. He has not only displayed a lack of integrity; he has behaved in a cowardly fashion. Most importantly, he has eroded public confidence in his approach to the position of Attorney-General and he has eroded public confidence in the government's approach to human rights—and that is why he should be censured.</p><p>I will comment briefly on the role of the Attorney-General. One should recall that the Attorney-General is not only a senior minister in the government; he is also the first law officer of the Commonwealth and has special responsibilities. He has a broad responsibility for the legal system and he has a special public interest role with the responsibility of promoting the interests of the community at large—as distinct from the narrow political interests of the government. The role also includes being the public defender of the courts and the judiciary. It should also include defending statutory agencies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission.</p><p>This Attorney runs this sophisticated legal argument—he thinks it is a very clever legal argument—that, because the commission is not technically a court, his obligation to defend its independence is not the same. I want people to pause for a moment and consider the ramifications of that. What he is saying is that those statutory bodies that this parliament creates to act as a fetter on executive power—to act as a watchdog over executive power and to comment independently on executive power—are open to political attack. I ask those senators listening to consider this. Under this argument, this Attorney-General would condone a public attack on ASIC, a public attack on the ACCC, a public attack on the Auditor-General, a public attack by the government on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Understand what this Attorney-General is saying. He is saying, 'Unless you are actually a court—even if you are a statutory body, an independent body—you are open to attack from and fair game for the bullies in the coalition.' That is not the Australia I believe in.</p><p>I believe that statutory agencies ought to be able to report without fear or favour. And there are things that the Human Rights Commission has said which I may not agree that, but I would defend their right to say it.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>What was warranted about that?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Unlike you: you want to defend the rights of the bigots! Well, I defend their right to provide reports to this parliament and to stand up for what they consider is their remit—and so does every senator on this side.</p><p>I believe there are senators on that side who are deeply troubled—deeply troubled—by the actions of this Attorney-General. They understand that this commission carries out important functions: the promotion of human rights and Australia's observance of international human rights convention and law, as well as resolving complaints of discrimination and conducting inquiries into human rights issues. I say, and the Labor senators say, that the role of the Attorney-General should be to defend such an agency from unwarranted and politically motivated attacks.</p><p>Again, I reprise that the attacks on the president of the commission have so alarmed the legal profession that the Bar Association and the Law Council jointly issued a statement on 14 February this year, including stating that in relation to Professor Triggs:</p><p class="italic">Personal criticism directed at her or at any judicial or quasi-judicial officer fulfilling the duties of public office as required by law is an attack upon the independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection.</p><p>The Law Council and the Australian Bar Association state that this:</p><p class="italic">… undermines confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection.</p><p>Senator Brandis failed to defend the commission when it came under attack from members of his own government and from the media.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>I defended the commission; I criticised the president—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, you can run that—he has come up with another legal argument! That is the problem with Senator Brandis: he understands words but he does not understand values. He does not understand principles. He is very good at the legalese, but he does not understand principle. The principles he is supposed to stand for, one sees him jettison them constantly when it suits his government or the political objectives of the chief bully, the Prime Minister.</p><p>I want to turn now to the pressure on the president of the Human Rights Commission to resign, because that is a disgraceful and a disturbing allegation. We know from evidence—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order on both sides!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We know from evidence—and some of this is not contested—before the Senate that the Attorney-General asked the secretary of his department to advise Professor Triggs that he had lost all confidence in her.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>She asked him!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>On my right!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We also know from evidence that he asked his departmental secretary to offer this independent statutory officer—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>She asked—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Macdonald!</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Here he goes again!</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>On my left!</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Bjelke's boy is up at his—</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Mr President—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Cameron! Just a moment Senator O'Sullivan.</p> <p class="speaker">Catryna Bilyk</p><p>He's not in his seat! You have to go back so you're not facing your media!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Bilyk!</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Do I have time to go to my seat, Mr President?</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>We will continue with Senator Wong. It is up to you, Senator O'Sullivan, if you wish to take a point of order from your seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>This alternative position was not just a vague suggestion that an alternative job might be found. That, of itself, would be bad enough. This was the offer of a specific position that was so sensitive and so important that the attorney could not reveal publicly what it is.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Your statement is false!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Professor Triggs, gave evidence to the Senate estimates last week—</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|