- As LJ King (former Chief Justice of South Australia and Attorney-General himself) stated, the role in Australia is largely political: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/2000/11.pdf
- Therefore, Brandis could be expected to reflect the will of the Government of the day and of his Cabinet colleagues
- Nevertheless, the A-G does hold unique office, at least historically, since he or she must maintain the utmost respect for Justice and encourage the perception of the due administration thereof
- On the one hand, Professor Triggs does not sit upon the Bench of a Chapter III Court in accordance with our Commonwealth Constitution
- On the other hand, she does discharge statutory responsibilities under the relevant legislation, and, though I am no expert in the field, I assume discharges quasi-judicial functions
- What was most serious was the manner in which the Attorney-General denigrated Prof Triggs's performance without any objective basis that I can see for that critique
- Were one to apply the ''apprehended bias'' test to her conduct as Statutory Office Holder under the Crown, I am convinced that no reasonable person would find any personal fault in her decision and certainly would find fault under nothing other than policy grounds
- Disparaging thus a quasi-judicial figure, Brandis's comments, bruited by the Prime Minister himself in Question Time, were alarming
- Reflecting, as they did, upon Chair of the Human Rights Commission - arguably our most critical non-judicial appointment - the Attorney-General and Prime Minister's attacks were deeply disturbing
- Given his duties as Chief Law Officer, the burden of that office, that he ought command the respect of the Legal Profession as a whole and the intemperate nature of his remarks, the Attorney-General ought to resign according to the Doctrine of Responsible Government
- Whereas responsible government is honoured mostly in the breach - if at all - in current climes, the Attorney-General has undermined confidence in his stewardship of the Legal Profession and has failed to act as conduit for the genuine concerns of the community as they pertain to the Courts and the administration of justice
