find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Nation’s top law officers at logger heads

Nation’s top law officers at logger heads

An unfolding paper power play between Australia’s top law officers has surfaced amid evidence presented before a Senate inquiry.

Attorney-General George Brandis QC and Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC have offered conflicting accounts in their written submissions to a Senate committee.

The contrasting views, widely described by observers as an escalating and bitter row, relate to the nuanced dynamic shared by holders of the Commonwealth’s most senior law offices. In question is whether Mr Gleeson had been consulted about the way members of government could gain access to his counsel.

“I was not given an opportunity to comment on the content of the direction,” Mr Gleeson said in his written submission to the inquiry.

Signs of strained dealings between Senator Brandis and Mr Gleeson, who has held the role since 2013, had started to show earlier this year.

In May, ahead of the federal election and just before the dissolution of parliament, Senator Brandis tabled a written direction in the Senate.

By the directive, the solicitor-general was effectively blocked from advising any minster or government department without first obtaining written approval from Senator Brandis, including advice sought by either the prime minister or governor general.

The Senate legal and constitutional affairs references committee met last week to consider the direction.

Mr Gleeson said he was not consulted about the change, as spelled out in the legally binding Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016. According to the solicitor general, he had even gone so far as to have the direction withdrawn in the hope that a proper consultation process could occur.

In his own submissions to the inquiry, Senator Brandis maintained that the Mr Gleeson had been consulted about the direction, pointing to a meeting held in November. 

Senator Brandis’ submission outlines that the direction merely “establishes a procedure that enables government bodies – not just the attorney general – to request solicitor general opinions by going through the attorney general.”

He added that correspondence with Mr Gleeson on 12 November, 2015 admitted insufficient procedures were in place to coordinate his advice to various government departments and agencies, which the direction sought to address.

“[The direction] does nothing to change the effect of the Law Officers Act. It simply establishes a procedure for implementing the reuqirements of that Act in such a way that allows other government agencies and bodies, rather than just the attorney general, to seek the solicitor general’s opinion on a question of law,” Senator Brandis wrote.

In his written submission, Mr Gleeson stressed importance that the solicitor general’s independence carried. For this reason the attorney general, acting as a gate-keeper to the advice of the solicitor general’s counsel, posed a problem.

“The independence of the solicitor general, as established by the Law Officers Act, is of exceptional importance. As independent of the Government of the day, the solicitor general is able to give frank and fearless legal advice, unencumbered by political or commercial concerns,” Mr Gleeson said.

He explained that given the solicitor general is required to appear on the government’s behalf for “the most important court matters”, the independent nature of the role garnered wide respect.

“Such is the respect for the independent advice of the solicitor general that the government or the governor general may realise the advice of the solicitor general or refer to having received that advice as a way of addressing concerns the Parliament, the legal profession or the public may have about a controversial legal issue,” Mr Gleeson said.

He also shared with the inquiry a letter sent to Senator Brandis in November last year. In that letter, Mr Gleeson suggested a false impression had been by the attorney general that the solicitor general’s advice was sought with respect to the government’s plans to revoke the dual citizenship of Australian citizens involved with terrorism

Associate Professor Gabrielle Appleby, a legal academic from the University of New South Wales, was invited to appear before the Senate inquiry and give expert evidence about the relationship between the first and second law officers.

Writing for The Conversation, the academic said that historically, an intentional tension had been built into the dynamic of attorney general and solicitor general.

“An inherent tension is built into the relationship between the attorney-general and the solicitor-general. The attorney-general is the minister responsible for the solicitor-general. But it is imperative that the solicitor-general can advise the government independently, including from the more political attorney-general,” A/Prof Appleby said.

At the same time, the attorney-general’s department also proceeded with the revision of a guidance note, which legal academics have observed as no longer including the circumstances when a solicitor-general’s advice should be sought.

“Gleeson has denied there was any discussion about a requirement to seek the formal approval of the attorney-general before seeking his advice. In contrast to the direction, the guidance note was not a legal instrument; it was not enforceable in any way,” A/Prof Appleby said.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Nation’s top law officers at logger heads
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
microphone
Oct 20 2017
Podcast: One of law’s most infamous alumni – in conversation with Julian Morrow
In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, Melissa Coade is joined by The Chaser’s Julian Morrow....
protest
Oct 20 2017
High Court overturns ‘excessive’ anti-protest legislation
Bob Brown’s recent victory in the High Court over the Tasmanian government was a win for fundament...
Blocked
Oct 20 2017
Changes to Australian citizenship laws blocked
Attempts to beef up the requirements to obtain Australian citizenship were thwarted this week, after...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...