Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:04): Under standing order 74(5)(c), I move that the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide the answer requested. Senator Brandis: Point of order, Madam Deputy President, that motion cannot be moved, because I have not failed to provide an answer. I have just given an answer. The senator may not be satisfied with the answer; he may wish to criticise the answer; but it is wrong in fact to say that I have not answered his question, when you have just heard me do so. Senator WATT: We could have a semantic argument about whether the Attorney-General has answered the question or not, but I am happy to rephrase the question. Under standing order 74(5)(c), I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide an explanation. The questions on notice that I asked, to which the Attorney-General has failed to give an explanation, relate to the scandalous appointments made by this Attorney-General to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on election eve this year. It is yet another in a long series of stuff-ups from probably the most accident-prone Attorney-General that this country has ever seen. Of course, there is such a long list of stuff-ups but I will remind the Senate of some of them. This Attorney-General has on at least two occasions misled this chamber, first of all with his statements in relation to the letters from the man responsible for the Lindt Cafe siege, Man Monis, and secondly more recently this Attorney-General has misled the Senate, and been found to have done so by a Senate committee, in relation to his behaviour concerning the Solicitor-General. That, of course, related to the Attorney-General's attempt to restrict the independence of the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General's false claims to have consulted the Solicitor-General in the making of that direction. On at least two occasions this Attorney-General has misled the Senate. We all know that the punishment for that, admitted by none other than this Prime Minister, is that this Attorney-General should resign. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this Attorney-General to show this Senate the respect that it deserves by tendering his resignation. This Attorney-General has also had the rare achievement of having been censured by the Senate in relation to the disgraceful conduct by him and other coalition senators in relation to the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs. I know that very soon we will have yet another show trial of Professor Triggs convened for coalition senators to do their dirty work again. But what I am mainly talking about today is another stuff-up from this accident prone Attorney-General, and that is in relation to his scandalous appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal just before this year's federal election. I asked a number of questions on notice around the time of Senate estimates this year to the Attorney-General concerning media reports about appointments that he had made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which, just coincidently, seem to favour a number of former LNP or Liberal Party donors, staffers, candidates and members of parliament. It did seem, when you looked through the list of appointments that were made by the Attorney-General to the AAT just before this year's election, that having an LNP or Liberal Party card or having been a staffer, a member of parliament or a donor was a pre-requisite—certainly a great advantage—in getting yourself appointed to the AAT by this Attorney-General. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for answers from the Attorney-General to some fairly basic questions about whether he had ever met with those appointees or had met or spoken to senior LNP officials about those appointments. It seems that the Attorney-General has not yet had the opportunity to get around to answering those very questions. I think it is important to give the Senate a little bit of history about these appointments, because I am aware that not everyone was a member of that Senate committee as I was and is not necessarily familiar with the process and what occurred. A number of things emerged from that Senate estimates hearing, the first of which is that, when it comes to appointments to be made to the AAT, in 2015 the Attorney-General was party to a new protocol which set out the process which should be followed in relation to appointments to the AAT. The idea, when you look at that protocol, is that there should be a process of cooperation between the president of the AAT and the Attorney-General before an appointment is made. Reviewing this protocol: it is a very good process, it is a very transparent process, that allows the president of the AAT to have input into what appointments are required and who are the appropriate people to be appointed. Of course, it does leave the final recommendation to the Attorney-General, and the final decision to cabinet, as is appropriate. In essence, the steps that this protocol sets out for appointments to the AAT require the president of the AAT to supply the Attorney-General with an indication of what the tribunal's needs will be in terms of new appointments and reappointments. The Attorney-General indicates which positions do not require public advertisement because the Attorney-General has determined suitable people to fill those appointments—and we will come back to that. But it is very clear that, in general, what should occur in relation to appointments to the AAT is that the Attorney-General should seek an expression of interest for those appointments by public advertisement. The purpose of that, as is the case with many government appointments, is to give the widest possible number of people who are qualified for these roles the opportunity to indicate an interest and to ensure that Australia is calling on its best minds, whoever they may support politically, to take up these very important and very highly paid roles. The protocol says that 'the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department will establish a selection committee that will include the president of the AAT, or their nominee; a representative of the Attorney-General; and the secretary of the department, or the secretary's nominee'. Again, that is a very fair, transparent and rigorous selection process, as you would expect for highly paid important public sector positions like members of the AAT. Only at the end of that process—at the end of the president providing the A-G with their assessment of what appointments are needed, at the end of going through an EOI process to cast a very wide net as to possible appointees, at the end of setting up a selection committee which interviews and vets people—is the Attorney-General to recommend appointments for cabinet's consideration. As I said, that is a very transparent and fair process and one that I commend to the Senate. Unfortunately, what we learnt at Senate estimates this year was that the Attorney-General flagrantly ignored his own protocol, his own fair and transparent process for coming up with appointments to the AAT. And not only that; it was very clear from the evidence presented at that Senate estimates committee that the Attorney-General not only did not follow that protocol but completely subverted the process in order to get his own mates and mates of the LNP or the Liberal Party into these very well remunerated and responsible positions. Again, I think it is important to remember that these appointments did not come at any moment in time; they were made one day before this year's election was called. I am not sure whether that was because the Attorney-General was concerned about the government's chances at the election and felt a desperate need to get mates of the LNP and the Liberal Party into these positions before they might have missed that opportunity. I am not sure whether people had recently finished up as staffers and needed new jobs to be guaranteed, or whether donors needed to be rewarded. But, for whatever reason, a very curious number of appointments—and I will come to that shortly—were made by the Attorney-General, without having gone through his own process, one day before the election was called. In total the Attorney-General made 76 appointments to the AAT one day before the election was called. You might ask: how much was the selection process followed by the Attorney-General? What was revealed at Senate estimates was that not one of those 76 appointments that were made by the Attorney-General one day before the election went through the selection process and the selection committee that was established under the protocol. The Attorney-General's Department gave evidence at the estimates hearing that it was not asked about the qualifications of these 76 employees. Despite the fact that there is supposed to be a process for people to give EOIs and have their qualifications vetted, on this indication it appears that the qualifications and experience of these appointees were not relevant to the job whatsoever. Of course, what we learnt was that there were certain other qualifications that were required, and that is favouritism, by many, towards the Liberal Party. The department gave evidence that it did not come up with the names of the 76 AAT appointees. Ordinarily, the department would be involved and would be asked for advice about who would be appropriate appointees to the AAT. On this occasion, the Attorney-General's own department did not come up with the list of names. It was only as we got into the late-night session at that Senate estimates that the truth became very clear. When asked who came up with the list of names of those 76 people to be appointed to these highly paid, responsible positions on the AAT, the answer from the department was that, just as we all suspected at the beginning of the day, that list came from the Attorney-General. That is really not much of a surprise when you review the names, experience and background of the 76 appointees. With a little bit of research, we found that 21 of the 76 appointees were ex-Liberal Party donors, members of parliament, candidates or staffers. That is nearly a third of these appointees. There was not really any consideration given to whether they had legal qualifications or whether they had experience that was appropriate to the sorts of decisions that they would need to make as AAT members, but they ticked a very important box in the Attorney-General's new selection process—and the box that they ticked was that they were former Liberal Party donors, MPs, candidates or staffers. It seems that, if you were able to tick that box, you got a much bigger advantage in getting appointed. Time does not permit me to go through the experience of all 21 of these appointees, but I think it is important to highlight the experience of some of the more celebrated appointees that this Attorney-General found his way clear to appoint to the AAT. The one who has attracted the most attention is Mr Theo Tavoularis, a former solicitor and criminal defence lawyer in Queensland—my own home state. It became clear from media reports that Mr Tavoularis represented the Attorney-General's own son in court. When it was put to the Attorney-General, he said that he could not remember whether legal fees that were paid by his son were discounted, whether there was a further favour made to Mr Tavoularis in addition to his appointment to the AAT— Senator Ian Macdonald: You're a real grub! Senator WATT: Senator Macdonald, you know all about that. We also found that Mr Tavoularis donated to the LNP in the lead-up to the 2013 election. He had quite a good track record and had done many favours for the LNP in Queensland. Now he has been rewarded with the princely sum of $370,000 per annum for five years. His appointment to the AAT will go for five years. That is quite a reward for services rendered to the LNP in Queensland. Dr Denis Dragovic is a failed former Liberal Party preselection candidate. He failed in his bid for Liberal Party preselection in the electorate of Goldstein in Victoria, he failed in his bid for the Liberal Party Senate ticket in Victoria, but he did not fail when it came to being appointed to an even more financially rewarding position on the AAT. Dr Dragovic has really hit the jackpot. He may not have got into the Senate, and he may not have got into the House of Representatives, but he is going to be receiving $300,000 per annum for seven years. That is even longer than a full Senate term, so I think he has done pretty well out of this arrangement. The one that I am most interested in is Mr John Sosso, who all of us from Queensland know has a very long political history in Queensland. As long as coalition governments have been in power in Queensland in my lifetime, Mr Sosso has been one of their favoured people. He is a good example of the type of person who this Attorney-General considers appropriate to exercise a position of responsibility and independence on the AAT. Mr Sosso was the director-general of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General under the Newman government. He was fired after the commendable election of the Palaszczuk government, but he was appointed as the director of the Justice and Attorney-General's Department under the only Attorney-General from Queensland who I could possibly imagine to be worse than this Attorney-General, and that is Jarrod Bleijie, the trumped-up conveyancing clerk from Kawana. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WATT: Is he pompous? He is pompous. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, on a point of order? Senator Ian Macdonald: I know Jarrod Bleijie—he would not worry at all about an attack from this sort of senator—but the rules of the Senate do require that members of parliament in other places be referred to properly. This half-hearted attack by this ambulance chaser— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt did actually refer to him as an Attorney-General— Senator WATT: I did. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: but I remind all senators of the need— Senator WATT: He was also known to us in state parliament as the conveyancing clerk for Kawana, so perhaps that is a more appropriate way to refer to him, as well as 'the former Attorney-General'. Mr Sosso oversaw that department under former Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie and oversaw a range of controversies involving a tender that was provided to a company to run boot camps. Mysteriously, that company was an LNP donor. He oversaw the implementation of the VLAD laws, which were supposed to be about combating bikie gangs in Queensland. Those laws have been spectacularly unsuccessful: not one conviction has been recorded against a bikie. All they really came up with was the idea of putting bikies in jails in pink jumpsuits, which is something no-one really ever understood. Mr Sosso was also the director-general of that department when it and the Attorney-General had a spectacular falling out with the Queensland judiciary over, among other things, their appointment of Justice Tim Carmody as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I am interested that someone who presided over the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in Queensland at a time when there was a failure to understand the separation of powers and the importance of an independent judiciary now finds himself on a tribunal. Mr Sosso's background with the Queensland LNP and National Party goes much further back than that. He also served within the legislation and policy branch in the justice department during the premiership of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He advised the National Party Attorney-General during the Fitzgerald inquiry. Mr Fitzgerald, one of Queensland's most outstanding justices and legal figures ever, was highly critical of the role Mr Sosso played at the justice department when he served there during the Fitzgerald inquiry. He went on to have many other dealings and appointments under Queensland National Party governments, and now he has been rewarded further by this Attorney-General for more service by being appointed to the AAT for seven years. We have also had Ms Saxon Rice, the former LNP member for Mount Coot-tha for one term, who has been appointed to the AAT for seven years. Ms Ann Brandon-Baker—ex-chief of staff for Scott Morrison, the current Treasurer—was appointed to the AAT for five years. Louise Bygrave—a former staffer to Tim Wilson, the member for Goldstein, when he was the Human Rights Commissioner—is now appointed to the AAT for five years. Mr Michael Manetta, who unsuccessfully ran for the South Australian parliament in 2014 for the Liberal Party, is appointed to the AAT for five years. Ms Adrienne Millbank, a researcher a Monash University who has called for Australia to abandon the UN convention on refugees, is now going to be appointed to the AAT. I am not sure whether she will be handling migration matters—one would only hope not—with that kind of attitude. They are only some of the 21 appointees with very clear links to the Liberal Party as either ex-donors, members of parliament, candidates or staffers. In conclusion, it is very important that the Attorney-General promptly answer these questions on notice to advise the Senate of any dealings that he personally had with these appointees. We already know that 21 of these 76 appointees have very clear links to the Liberal Party or the LNP in Queensland for past services, for past donations or as past members of parliament, staffers or candidates. That was the only requirement they needed to fill in order to gain appointment to the AAT one day before the election. As I have already indicated, a number of these people are going to be holding these very responsible positions which really determine the rights of Australians all around the country. They are going to be being paid, in some cases, more that $300,000 a year for each of the seven years that they are going to be appointed. But we still have not had any clarification from the Attorney-General about the qualifications that these people held, about the experience they held or, indeed, about whether he had personal contact with any of them before he miraculously came up with a list of names that was presented to his department. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, resume your seat. Senator Brandis, a point of order? Senator Brandis: The point of order is this: it is not a debating point, given the motion that the senator has moved. The senator has said that there has been no explanation as to the qualifications of these people. Most of his speech, indeed, has been directed to asserting or implying that they were not qualified, which is not true. My point of order is that the questions concerning which an explanation was sought of me do not inquire of their qualifications. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it still goes to the fact it is a debating point. Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator WATT: As I was saying, it is critical that the Senate is provided with answers by this Attorney-General, in particular about the contact that he personally had with each of these appointees. I note that a number of them actually do have quite an extensive background with the Liberal Party, the National Party or the LNP in the Attorney-General's own state of Queensland. I think we would all be interested to know about his level of personal contact with these people. In wrapping up, this is yet another example of an accident-prone Attorney-General. Canberra is rife with rumours about the Attorney-General being moved on in a pre-Christmas reshuffle. There are rumours up and down Queensland about people jockeying for his Senate role. Madam Deputy President, you can really easily understand why when you reflect on the fact that he had repeatedly misled this Senate, he has been subject to a censure motion and now has made scandalous AAT appointments. (Time expired)