Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (16:47): I rise to make a contribution to this MPI debate. Senator Brandis has stood here today claiming that the Attorney-General has undermined public confidence in the courts and has inappropriately interfered in litigation. This is a constant complaint from Senator Brandis. He has even complained that the Attorney-General successfully defended plain-packaging legislation when various tobacco companies took the Commonwealth to the High Court. How outrageous that the Attorney-General would defend the Commonwealth against big tobacco giants and their litigation strategy! Senator Brandis continues to berate the Attorney-General for successfully defending this country's laws. These incredible claims come from the shadow Attorney-General, who has proven again and again that he cannot stop himself from inappropriately interfering in legislative matters in states other than those he has been elected to represent. What he does not mention in his MPI is that he tried to intervene in independent police matters earlier this year when he called the New South Wales Liberal police minister to try and force a police investigation. Senator Brandis sought to influence independent investigations by the New South Wales Police and the New South Wales DPP. Senator Scullion: That is completely fallacious. Senator FEENEY: I take that interjection because the facts are well known. He made phone calls to the New South Wales Attorney-General and the New South Wales police minister regarding investigations. The then New South Wales police minister went on to relay that call to the New South Wales Police Commissioner. He did not allow independent police investigations to proceed and in fact sought to influence those investigations because they involved a political opponent. This year he sought again to interfere in the police investigation process, on this occasion referring matters relating to Australia Day to the Federal Police. He provided this letter to the media and alleged a cover-up. The Federal Police later concluded: 'The available evidence does not support the existence of any criminal offences.' Senator Humphries: Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The matter of public importance before the Senate is about the conduct of the Attorney-General, Ms Roxon. Much as Senator Feeney might want to turn this around to make it a commentary on Senator Brandis, it is not the subject matter of the matter of public importance and he should confine his remarks to Ms Roxon's behaviour. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McKenzie ): Continue, Senator Feeney, and please ensure that your comments refer to the question. Senator FEENEY: If I may address you on the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I make the point that in these debates it is customary that the Senate allows a reasonable amount of latitude so that it can engender the political discourse that these debates are designed to engender. Above and beyond that, I have been speaking now for some 2½ minutes and in those 2½ minutes I have been directly relevant to the question, which is the debate around the conduct of the Attorney-General and the person who calls that conduct into account. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There was no point of order and I look forward to you continuing to make reference to the question before us. Senator FEENEY: Thank you. The Federal Police later concluded that the available evidence did not support the evidence of any criminal offences. And all of this from someone who aspires to be Attorney-General. Can you imagine an Attorney-General as reckless as this senator? Think of when he compared the Greens and the Nazi party. On 29 October 2003 he said: I intend to continue to call to the attention of the Australian people the extremely alarming, frightening similarities between the methods employed by contemporary green politics and the methods and the values of the Nazis. And he made outrageous comments regarding the Prime Minister on 27 January 2010 when he said: I think Julia Gillard who … has chosen not to be a parent … shows that she just doesn't understand the way parents think about their children when they reach a particular age. The actions of this would-be Attorney-General I am afraid speak far louder than words. Today we see that the shadow Attorney-General does not believe that the Attorney-General should be involved— Senator Scullion: What about the Attorney-General? Senator FEENEY: Your interjection was magnificently timed, Senator. Thank you. Senator Scullion interjecting— Senator FEENEY: Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, I urge you to deal with this disorderly conduct. Today we see that the shadow Attorney-General does not believe that the Attorney-General should be involved in being briefed on legal proceedings. That is right. We have heard from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General should not speak to government engaged solicitors. What errant nonsense! It is therefore clear that he would not want to undertake a large part of the Attorney-General's workload should he ever be successfully appointed to that position. As the first law officer, it is perfectly normal for the Attorney-General to be regularly briefed and consulted by government legal teams on significant cases to which the Commonwealth is a party. Of course, when one sets it out in that way it seems blindingly obvious; but, alas, not to those opposite. Briefings have occurred in the past on everything from whaling to the chaplains case through to immigration matters, the Federal Magistrates case and, of course, in more recent times, the tobacco litigation. The Attorney-General also personally chairs a quarterly significant legal issues meeting, which discusses the legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party. All of this is natural and all of this is, of course, longstanding custom and practice. Is Senator Brandis really saying today that, if he were Attorney-General, he would not regularly receive briefings and want to be consulted on significant legal matters to which the Commonwealth is a party? Is he saying that he would not perform one of the key roles of the job to which he aspires? In considering the remarks that have been made earlier in this debate concerning the Slipper-Ashby settlement, I will be short. I will be short in relation to the issue of the legal case of Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby for obvious reasons. This government has been mindful of its obligations to the court to use judicial resources appropriately and its obligations to taxpayers to minimise costs by trying to achieve settlement. Settlements are not about who is right and who is wrong; they are about bringing matters to a speedy conclusion, which is what the Commonwealth has now achieved. This is something that I believe is well understood by the shadow Attorney-General. But, of course, nonetheless he does not resist the temptation to try and score a political point. The matter between Mr Ashby and Mr Slipper continues before the Federal Court. The judge has reserved his decision in the matter of Mr Slipper's application alleging that the matter is an abuse of process. In considering the text messages that have received so much coverage today and in recent days, let it simply be said that I and, I believe, all of us would condemn these comments. We condemn sexism wherever it resides. But, again, I should note that these matters are currently before the courts. I do not believe it is appropriate—and those opposite should support me in this—for a political debate to be conducted while this matter is currently before the Federal Court of Australia. This Commonwealth takes sexual harassment very seriously. While our settlement does not admit liability, the government has agreed to establish specific training for members and senators in relation to issues of sexual harassment as well as to staff on how to deal with any such issues. Senator Brandis has said that it is inappropriate for the Attorney-General to provide an explanation about the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court. It is actually completely appropriate for the Attorney-General to provide a description of the approach the Commonwealth has taken before the court—for example, which applications are being made and heard. Remember, it was the Commonwealth that was being sued and, in defending that complaint, filed an objection and made submissions that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. Those documents and the arguments are public documents on the court file. This is a particularly important point—public documents on the court file. As of last Thursday, the Commonwealth had settled its dispute with Mr Ashby, both his complaint against the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's complaint about the process. It is therefore not the intention of the government to make further comments about the proceedings between the remaining two parties. What is fascinating about the MPI today is that the Attorney-General, who has been attacked for her involvement as part of the so-called handbag hit squad and attacked for not talking about policy, is in fact getting on with her job in an appropriate and conscientious way. Meanwhile, Senator Brandis wants to attack her for doing what her job requires. The coalition's position flip-flops between the Attorney-General talking about personality, not action. Today in the Punch the Attorney-General talked about what the government has and will deliver for women and has contrasted that with what the Liberals failed to do in their 11 years in office. In doing this, the Attorney-General has been assuring that the debate goes past personality and rather looks at the policies and actions of politicians. Senator Brandis has clearly failed the action test when it comes to being an appropriate Attorney-General, and the only way he can deal with his failure is to try and finger-point. Let us not forget that it is a constant complaint from Senator Brandis that the Attorney-General is doing her job. Think again to when he complained about the Attorney's role in successfully defending plain-packaging legislation. He aspires to one day take up the position of Attorney-General, but I ask: what will he do if he does? We know he will not defend the Commonwealth against multinational companies trying to dictate our laws. We know he will not take briefings about legal matters the Commonwealth is engaged in. But what he will do, as he has demonstrated, is intervene in independent police matters and try and force police investigations when they might pertain to those he judges to be his political opponents. The call for politicians to be judged not on personality but rather on actions is one that should be ringing in the ears of the shadow Attorney-General today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time for the debate has now expired.