Soula Papadopoulos writes: Re. “Incurious George finds the Day detail a bit taxing” (yesterday). I think Bernard is being too harsh. The Attorney General did provide us with vital information.

He was twice able to inform Leigh Sales of the provision of the constitution that might give rise to the disqualification of Senator Day.

I am sure that there were heaps of people at home earlier last night worried that our government was falling apart, with senators dropping like flies.

I am equally sure that they all soon felt much calmer, thinking “Well, it is OK that our Attorney-General does not know anything at all about any aspect of the long history of this matter, because he does know which provision of the Constitution is in dispute, so everything is under control”.

It is not like me to quibble, but he referred to the provision as “section 44, subparagraph (v)”.

If he had bothered to read the second sentence in what was literally the only two sentences on which he was briefed before going on national television to discuss this issue, our Attorney-General would know that the provision is correctly described as “section 44, subsection (v)”.

So our First Law Officer knows exactly one thing about a matter that will soon be the subject of a ground breaking High Court case.

And he only has it half right.

Peter Fray

Help us keep up the fight

Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.

If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today and get your first 12 weeks for $12.

Cancel anytime.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

JOIN NOW