Five hours and counting
The inquiry started shortly before 11am and, some five hours later, limps towards a finale.
The upshot of today's evidence? The fight between the country's top lawyers is showing no sign of abating.
Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson, SC, has said he considers a direction issued by Attorney-General George Brandis requiring all ministers and departments to seek his permission before asking Gleeson for advice is "unlawful".
He said he will make a "conscientious decision" to ignore the direction if he is asked directly for advice by, for example, the Governor-General.
Brandis has denied he misled Parliament by claiming he consulted Gleeson about this direction, a claim Gleeson denies.
The Attorney-General says both he and Gleeson are "fussy about words" and this whole dispute centres on a difference of opinion about what is meant by consult.
That concludes our live blog. Thanks for reading.
Keeping house
Meanwhile, back at the Senate inquiry ranch, Attorney-General George Brandis says he regarded this controversial change to the way Justin Gleeson is briefed as nothing more than "administrative housekeeping".
It was "the most commonplace thing in the world", he adds.
He is shocked at the controversy.
'Mumbo jumbo and nonsense'
Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus says Brandis has offered "a whole lot of mumbo jumbo and nonsense" to justify his direction about briefing the Solicitor-General.
"I find it extraordinary that he's done this, he hasn't put forward the slightest justification for it. He's tried to cover up what he's done with a whole lot of mumbo jumbo and nonsense," Dreyfus says at a press conference.
It's hard to know where the ALP stands with fence-sitting comments like this, isn't it.
"He's tried to distract attention from a direct lie he told the Australia Senate in a document that he tabled in the Senate on May 4 this year," Dreyfus adds.
Brandis insists he did not mislead the Parliament when he claimed he consulted the Solicitor-General about this change to the way he would be briefed.
A red-faced tantrum
Fairfax reporter Amy Remeikis is ringside at the Brandis v Gleeson showdown and offers her observations on the unedifying spat.
"In extraordinary scenes, the government, through its three senators on the legal and constitutional affairs references committee, went to war with the nation's second law officer in full view of the public - a battle it lost the moment it took up verbal arms," she writes.
A narrow view
George Brandis says Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson has "a much narrower view" of what is meant by consultation than him.
It is starting to feel like this inquiry is circling one of Canberra's famed roundabouts.
He agrees when he met with Gleeson he did not say he planned to issue a binding direction changing the way Gleeson would be briefed.
'I'm not trying to hurry you along'
Brandis inquires when this ritual flagellation is likely to conclude. Labor Senator Murray Watt says about 4.15pm is about the mark.
"I'm not trying to hurry you along," Brandis says.
Perish the thought.
'It's a yes or no question'
Greens Senator Nick McKim asks George Brandis if he told the Solicitor-General explicitly about his plans to issue a legally-binding direction preventing ministers from seeking his advice directly.
"It's a yes or no question," McKim presses.
Brandis says he has answered the question already and he considered that consultation was sufficient.
'I believe it to be true'
Pressed again about whether he misled Parliament by claiming he had consulted Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson about changes to the way he would be briefed, George Brandis says it comes down to a difference of views.
"I believe it to be true," he says of his claim.
He adds, again, that his view is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word "consult".
But he acknowledges Gleeson believes his claim to be "inaccurate".
Clothed in the law
We're back on the precise meaning of the word "consult", which is just the sort of debate one wants to get into on a Friday afternoon.
Brandis insists he asked Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson for his "views" about the issue at the centre of this furore at a meeting on November 30 last year.
But he readily concedes he did not actually tell Gleeson he was going to issue a legally-binding direction restricting the ability of ministers and government departments to seek advice directly from the Solicitor-General.
Brandis says this is because he did not come up with the "legal form the substance of our discussion should be clothed in" until after the meeting.
He says Gleeson has one view and he has another about the meaning of consultation.
"My view is supported by the dictionary," he adds.
Zinger!
'Political enemies'
George Brandis, warming to this subject, says he "cannot begin to understand" why Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson spoke to one of the government's "principal political enemies" during the election campaign and did not tell him about it.
He's referring to a conversation the Solicitor-General had with shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus in June. During that conversation, Gleeson denied claims made by Brandis in Parliament that he had consulted Gleeson about the change to the way the Solicitor-General would be briefed.
Brandis adds he is "astonished" this change has "become so controversial".
"It is such an obscure and arcane dispute," he says.
Time-wasters
George Brandis is now among friends, fielding questions from Queensland Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald.
Macdonald says Brandis' opening statement puts the feud into "perspective", namely that the inquiry is an "absolute waste of time".
'A dog on a lead'
A former Solicitor-General during the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments, Gavan Griffith, QC, has said the changes introduced by Brandis effectively reduce the government's chief legal adviser to a "dog on a lead".
Brandis says this characterisation is an "insult" to the Solicitor-General and every other barrister because they have professional obligations of independence.
'We have to take your word?'
At the centre of this feud is a direction made by Attorney-General George Brandis which prevents the Governor-General, ministers and government departments seeking advice directly from the Solicitor-General. Instead, they need to ask Brandis for his written permission.
Brandis says this is consistent with the law and historical practice, a claim challenged by the Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson and others. Gleeson said this morning that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sought his advice in confidence earlier this year - which could not happen under the new rules.
But Brandis says it is "inconceivable" that he would ever decline to allow the Solicitor-General to advise the Governor-General, for example.
"So we just have to take your word for that?" Labor Senator Murray Watt asked.
'That is not the truth'
Attorney-General George Brandis disputes Justin Gleeson's claim that Brandis refused to engage with him after he raised concerns about a controversial direction by Brandis requiring ministers to seek his approval before asking Gleeson for advice.
"That is not the truth," Brandis says.
He says he wrote to Gleeson on August 16 - months after Brandis issued the legally-binding direction at the heart of this controversy - to invite him to discuss the matter.
He says if Gleeson had spoken to him "this issue could have been sorted out in a matter of minutes and at no cost to the taxpayer".
Gleeson had previously written to Brandis and asked for the direction to be withdrawn.
Semantics
George Brandis offers to provide a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "consultation".
He says he did consult Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson about a controversial change requiring all minsters to obtain his written permission before seeking advice from Gleeson.
He has admitted he did not raise the prospect of a binding legal direction to this effect, because he had not yet considered the idea.
But says in any case the change was a mere formality.
Back to top'I stand by every word'
Brandis has been accused of misleading Parliament by claiming he consulted Justin Gleeson, the government's chief legal adviser, about changes to the way he is briefed. Gleeson flatly denies he did.
"I stand by every word of every statement I have made on the public record," Brandis says.
He says the dispute between him and Gleeson centres on the meaning of "consultation".
He says the law "does not require consultation about the precise language of a legislative instrument" or the precise intention of a rule-maker.
It is "more than enough" that the rule-maker - that is, Brandis himself - is satisfied that there was consultation on the "subject matter" of the rule.
He did not need to consult "in some specific fashion".
Fighting words
Attorney-General George Brandis has arrived to give his side of the spat with Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson and he's not shying away from a fight.
There are "matters arising out of Mr Gleeson's evidence ... with which I would like briefly to deal," he says, ominously, in an opening statement.
Chiefly, he says he became aware "for the first time" this morning that Gleeson had spoken "during the election campaign" to shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus about his concerns about changes made by Brandis to the way he is briefed.
He says Gleeson did not inform him of this conversation at the time.
"I consider that he ought to have done so and I am shocked that he did not," Brandis says.
He says this was particularly so because government was in caretaker mode.
He rejects claims by Gleeson that he refused to engage with him about his concerns.
Short adjournment
The inquiry takes a short break before we press on to Round Two of this most compelling bit of lawyer biffo. Stay with us.
The #BrandisGleeson Senate inquiry takes a short break. The hokey country music on the Senate live feed is top notch.
— Michaela Whitbourn (@MWhitbourn) October 14, 2016
'Political shitstorm'
Liberal Senator Barry O'Sullivan says Justin Gleeson must have known he would involve himself in a "political shitstorm" by telling the shadow attorney-general his concerns about changes to the way he is briefed.
O'Sullivan is duly chastised for his "unparliamentary" language.
Gleeson says he didn't think he was "playing into" a political matter. He was seeking to correct an inaccurate claim by Brandis in Parliament that he had been consulted about the change, which took the form of a legally-binding direction.
He says he asked Brandis to withdraw the direction and received "no response".
"The Attorney-General has refused to engage with me on this topic," Gleeson said.
Dasher!
Labor Senator Sam Dastyari has been keeping the lowest of low profiles on this committee, and elsewhere, since he quit his shadow frontbench roles last month over the Chinese donations scandal.
But lo! Here he is. Seeking clarification on a point during the hearing!
It's all too exciting for Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, who tells him: "You should go back to China."
It just ain't collegiate.
Search pagination
1 new post(s) available. View post(s) Dismiss