Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (15:02): I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions asked by opposition senators today relating to the Solicitor-General. We, on this side of the chamber, keep returning to the Attorney's evasions on this matter because they raise fundamental questions of integrity, and questions of integrity go to the issue of fitness to hold office. In particular, no more could this be said than when it comes to the question of the first law officer of the Commonwealth. Integrity, of course, goes broader than that, to the wider legal system, which is tarnished when the principal officer lets it down. The law is a noble profession. Some would say, of course, that it is the oldest of professions—bar one. Lawyers are sometimes denigrated as a profession, and we know that is unwarranted. The legal fraternity understands very well that duplicity will undermine public trust in the law. The late John Mortimer, an eminent practitioner at the English bar and creator of perhaps the greatest fictional lawyer, Rumpole of the Bailey, reported these remarks by his father when he was urging him to pursue a legal career, No brilliance is needed in the law. Nothing but common sense, and relatively clean fingernails … Learn a little law, won't you? The young Mortimer explained his father's meaning in this way: It was my father's way to offer the law to me—the great stone column of authority which has been dragged by an adulterous, careless, negligent and half-criminal humanity down the ages—as if it were a small mechanical toy which might occupy half an hour on a rainy afternoon. Mortimer's point was very simple: the authority of law, the great stone column, is at risk if it is undermined by those who treat legal processes and the edifice of law as trifles to be manipulated for advantage. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening. We have heard numerous evasions from the slippery and oleaginous advocates that we have here—and we have the chief law officer of this land, the great law lord of this land, Lord Brandis himself. The Attorney-General has usurped the Solicitor-General's capacity to provide independent legal advice—the senior offices of the Commonwealth. Even the Governor-General and the Prime Minister— Senator Ian Macdonald: Point of order! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Carr, resume your seat, please. Yes, Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald: This senator should know, having been here for some time, that you must refer to senators in their correct title. And a second point of order: can I draw the Deputy President's attention to the standing order which prohibits the reading of speeches—particularly by experienced people and particularly by people who cannot understand Mr Dreyfus's writing! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I remind all senators to refer to senators, and others in the other place, by their correct titles. Senator KIM CARR: The Attorney-General has misled the Senate by claiming Mr Gleeson was consulted on the changes that he had sought— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Carr, resume your seat. Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald: Madam Deputy President, I raised two points of order. One of those was the one you have addressed. I wonder if you might address the other one about experienced members reading every note of their contribution. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I remind all senators of the standing order in relation to reading from notes. Senator KIM CARR: The Solicitor-General has clearly advised this Senate, through its committee, that the claims made by the Attorney-General about consultation are incorrect. In fact, I think we should all be aware of this, because, on the basis of what the Attorney-General has said, any casual greeting in the corridor by this Attorney-General could be treated as consultation in the future! What we know, of course, is simply this: we well know that this senator has misled the Senate, and we know that the misleading of the Senate is a very serious offence. This is not the first time. This is not the first occasion on which these issues have been raised. We have seen this not just in the question of the treatment of this chamber but also in the treatment of other judicial officers, such as the Human Rights Commissioner, who was simply doing her job. We know how, clearly, this Attorney-General offended the basic principles of his office by failing to defend the statutory officers in that particular matter. What we know is that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the independence of the Solicitor-General and his capacity to do his job properly. We know he has dissembled about that. We know that in fact this is a serious offence and that the Prime Minister should have intervened by now. If the Attorney-General does not resign, he should be sacked. We understand simply this: he will continue to undermine the integrity of our legal system and he will continue to undermine the authority of his own office unless he is brought to book for what has occurred in these matters.