Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (16:06): It does appear as if the MPI has been put down by the opposition for one simple reason, as Senator Brandis said. It does appear that that simple reason is to give an opportunity for Senator Brandis to grandstand in the Senate for 10 minutes. Senator Brandis has spoken in the debate. He has almost exploded with indignation, pomposity and outrage. But I think it might be helpful to have a close look at the facts and how the Attorney-General has dealt with the issues that have been raised this afternoon by Senator Brandis. It is commonplace and entirely appropriate for the Attorney-General, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, to be regularly briefed and consulted by Commonwealth legal teams on legal cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. There are any number of cases—as Senator Brandis would know—where this has occurred. In fact, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth chairs a significant legal issues meeting that is held quarterly which focuses on legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. I am sure even Senator Brandis, were he to become Attorney-General, would also engage in such processes. It makes sense, as happens in so many other matters, that in the Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper matter, for the Attorney-General to have discussions with the government's legal team. I would have thought that it would be more remarkable, frankly, if she did not. You would appreciate, Madam Acting Deputy President, as I know Senator Brandis and members of the opposition do, that I am not a lawyer. But I am aware that the government has entered into a deed with Mr Ashby and has settled his case with the Commonwealth. There remains an outstanding legal proceeding between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. While mediation was held last week, that mediation was unable to settle the matter between those two parties. But as far as the matter between Mr Ashby and the Commonwealth is concerned, that matter was settled and the terms of the settlement are public. Those terms include: an express provision that the Commonwealth does not accept liability; a $50,000 payment to Mr Ashby; and an agreement to offer training and information to parliamentarians and parliamentarians' staff about sexual harassment and associated complaints. If I can find that information out, so can Senator Brandis. This settlement certainly appears to be consistent with all Commonwealth obligations, responsibilities and legal advice. And it is a fact that the settlement was made in accordance with legal advice from senior counsel. It is a fact that the settlement, as I understand it, was made on the basis of advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. Like Senator Brandis, I did read closely the Attorney-General's statement of 28 September. The Attorney-General said: The Commonwealth has been mindful of its obligations to taxpayers to achieve the most cost-effective outcomes for legal proceedings amongst other considerations. The Attorney-General also made it clear—and Senator Brandis quoted these words—that the case was 'a lawyer's picnic that could have extended well into the year' That does seem pretty accurate to me given again that it has been reported that the costs of the litigation to date are $730,000 with, as we are told, more bills to come. I think that in my time as a Senator I have tried to be quite meticulous and consistent about not raising matters that are before a court or are operational matters with the Australian Federal Police and it is not a practice— Senator Brandis interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Order! Senator Brandis, you were heard in silence. Senator FAULKNER: that I intend to depart from in this debate. That does not mean that I do not have views on such matters, of course I do. But, as I said, in my time in the Senate I have tried to adopt a consistent approach on this and do not intend to change the habits of a lifetime today. I do note, of course, that some have criticised the Attorney-General for public comments that she has made. We have heard that. But it seems to me that it would be more remarkable if the Attorney-General did not provide information about the approach that the Commonwealth has taken before the court. This is a matter where the Commonwealth was being sued by Mr Ashby and, in defending the complaint, the Commonwealth filed an application and made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. The Attorney-General explained the application that the Commonwealth made in the court. It is true that the matter was settled last week—both Mr Ashby's complaint against the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's complaint against the process. But there is a remaining matter, as we all know. That is between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. As I have said before, it would be prudent and proper not to canvass that matter while it is before the court. The Attorney-General has been, as you have heard in this debate, criticised in relation to access to the court by Mr Slipper's Comcar for which the Attorney-General's office made a request on one occasion. That is true. The Attorney-General's office was informed, as I understand it, by the building management that this should not have occurred, so the Attorney-General apologised to the building manager. So a mistake was made. In the scheme of things I think it was a comparatively minor mistake but, appropriately, an apology was made. Surely Senator Brandis knows that we all make mistakes. Even someone as eminent as Senator Brandis makes mistakes—one or two of them perhaps of a more serious nature than what car goes into what car park. Did, for example, Senator Brandis apologise when he made a phone call to the New South Wales Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Gallacher, regarding investigations into the member for Dobell? It was reported at the time—I do not know whether it is accurate or not; it has never been corrected by Senator Brandis or anyone else—that, as a result of Senator Brandis's call, the New South Wales police minister relayed the matter onto the New South Wales Police Commissioner. I personally believe— Senator Brandis: Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: what was said at the time was by the New South Wales Police Commissioner. That statement that has just been made by Senator Faulkner was incorrect. Senator Faulkner should withdraw that false claim. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is not a point of order, Senator Brandis. Senator FAULKNER: I believe that what Senator Brandis did in relation to that matter was a mistake. So did many other people. I thought personally that a shadow Attorney-General should know better. But I did not come into the Senate chamber, puff myself up with all the righteous indignation in the world and excoriate Senator Brandis—far from it. I did not open the door of my glass house and proceed to hurl stones at my opponents. I just say to Senator Brandis: you have to be careful about these things, because I think you have to be careful not to diminish yourself. I have said before that Senator Brandis likes Nicola Roxon. Well, I like Senator Brandis, and I also acknowledge and have acknowledged in the past that he is an able parliamentarian. But, just like attorneys-general, shadow attorneys-general need to adopt high standards. As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is also an ongoing court proceeding, and not only the one between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper. The Australian Federal Police announced on 19 July—and I read from its press release—that it had received and accepted a referral to investigate allegations of fraud against Mr Slipper and that it had forwarded certain material to the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consultation and possible further action. So there is more than one issue and more than one matter about which judgements will be made in the future, and that is as it should be. Let me make one final point in the short amount of time I have available to me. Many years ago in this chamber I was one who used all the mechanisms that the Senate had available to me to hold a Senate Presiding Officer—the then Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Colston—to account. At no stage did I seek or receive the views of my colleagues in the House of Representatives about the Senator Colston matter. Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When I came down to the chamber to hear Senator Brandis's contribution on this debate, there was a debate taking place in the House of Representatives about whether Mr Slipper should remain as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and his future is a matter for the House of Representatives. It is not a matter for the Senate.