PRIME MINISTER:
On behalf of the Australian Government and the Australian people, we convey our condolences to the Thai Royal Family and the people of Thailand, on the death of the King Bhumibol, who has reigned in Thailand for 70 years, during which time his country has grown from a population of 20 million to over 67 million, and during which time there has been extraordinary economic and social progress.
As you know, the King is deeply revered by the people of Thailand, respected around the world and his passing is a matter of enormous sorrow for the people of Thailand. We share their grief and we extend, as I said, our condolences to the people of Thailand and the royal family.
We should note also that in our wonderful multicultural society, there are around 50,000 Australians of Thai heritage and they too will be mourning the passing of the King.
JOURNALIST:
On another issue Prime Minister, the Brandis-Gleeson dispute. Do you believe that this new legal direction put in place by George Brandis compromises Justin Gleeson's ability to give independent legal advice to the Commonwealth?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it certainly doesn't compromise his ability to give independent advice at all. The Solicitor-General's advice should always be independent. He is the second law officer of the Crown - of the Government, if you like - the first law officer is the Attorney-General. So my principle legal advisor is the Attorney-General and that has been the case for every Prime Minister.
Mr Gleeson's advice should always be thoroughly independent, as indeed should every lawyers' advice be. As a former lawyer, I can tell you that one of the worst forms of investment is paying a lawyer to tell you what you want to hear. You always should have independent advice and I have no doubt Mr Gleeson's advice will always be independent.
JOURNALIST:
So you think the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General can continue to work together?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am sure, absolutely sure they can and will.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] from the HSU, do you have an opinion about this appointment?
PRIME MINISTER:
It looks to me like yet another union stitch up. As you know, the modern Labor Party is essentially controlled by a small number of trade unions, militant trade unions for the most part. It is not a broad-based political movement. All of their appointments, their deals, are factional ones. You only have to look at the extraordinary performance of the Andrews Government in Victoria when it took on 60,000 Country Fire Authority volunteers at the behest of one militant trade union. Extraordinary. There was no way that the Labor Party of Wran or Hawke or Keating would have ever contemplated that.
Daniel Andrews is a wholly owned subsidiary of a small number of militant unions. Look at Bill Shorten, when he was in government, as a minister under the Gillard Government as the behest of the Transport Workers Union, he set up that Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal – so called - which had the effect, as we saw, of putting tens of thousands of owner-drivers off the road, out of work. Families had no income.
It was my Government that took the decisive action to get that tribunal abolished. Otherwise, those independent operators, those small business men and women would still be unemployed. They still wouldn't have the income to pay the bills, to pay their mortgage, to pay for the groceries. The Labor Party is captured by militant trade unions. Look at the way they continue to defend the CFMEU. The Australian industry, Australia’s construction sector, is calling out for the restoration of the rule of law in work places and the construction sector. It is obvious that the rule of law should apply. The CFMEU treats the millions of dollars of fines that are imposed on them for breaking the law as just a cost of doing business. It is like they treat it like parking tickets. They have contempt for the law. We are seeking to restore the Building and Construction Commission. Labor should get behind it but it can't. Its hands are tied. It is a captive of militant unions.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister just to clarify you were happy to seek permission from the Attorney-General before seeking advice from the Solicitor-General, you're comfortable with that as Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can tell you how, leaving aside the intricacies of the matter, let me put it to you as a matter of practice. I believe the right course of action for a Prime Minister - any Prime Minister and obviously this is what I would do - if I need legal advice, it is advice that you can consult with the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Crown. It is always appropriate to say to the Attorney-General: "I would like to seek advice from the Solicitor-General” and to do so in consultation with the Attorney-General.
It is inconceivable that the Attorney-General would say: "No, I don't want you to seek the advice of the Solicitor-General".
So you have got to recognise that this is being - we are forgetting that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are a team. They support each other. But the Attorney is the first law officer. There is a tendency sometimes to forget that in the role of Attorney-General, we have had over the years some very distinguished lawyers. Now Senator Brandis is a Queens Counsel. I look back to Lucy's dad, Tom Hughes QC as Attorney-General or Nigel Bowen or Garfield Barwick – Garfield Barwick was an Attorney-General in the Menzies Government and without any question, the greatest advocate of his time. Without any question. So he was the Attorney-General.
Are we suggesting that somehow or other his advice or his position is secondary to the Solicitor-General? Would you imagine saying that to Barwick or indeed to Tom Hughes? I think we have got to remember this is a situation where you have two distinguished lawyers, each of whom provide advice to the Government, but the first law officer is the Attorney-General.
JOURNALIST:
But [inaudible] the team is not working together. You have a feud between Brandis and Justin
PRIME MINISTER:
I am sure whatever differences or misunderstandings will be resolved.
Now I want to note Bob Dylan's very important award. We should all recollect what an extraordinary contribution he has made to literature. As we stand here and we stand here in the Parliament of Australia, we reflect on the significance, the lyrics of that great song he wrote so long ago: “Come senators, Congressmen, please heed the call, don't stand in the doorways, don't block up the hall”.
A good message to senators everywhere.
Thank you.
[Ends]