The constitutional role of the Solicitor-General : an historical, legal and lived portrait.

Abstract

This thesis introduces the Solicitor-General as an important actor in the modern Australian constitutional order. The Solicitor-General‘s significance lies in the office‘s role as the final and authoritative legal adviser to government. This function is combined with that of government advocate, defending the legality of government action and protecting the institutional interests of the body politic. This research provides the first portrait of the office from an historical, legal, and lived perspective. I hope that it will be a valuable tool for officeholders and government officials seeking to understand the role. The modern Australian Solicitor-General is a uniquely Australian institution. Its design is underpinned by the objective of creating an independent, exclusively legal officer to complement the Australian Attorney-General, who has become increasingly political. On the one hand, the office‘s framers sought to create an office that would be beyond criticism because of improper political or administrative influence. On the other, the officeholder‘s continuity of service to the Crown would mean they would be understanding of, and responsive to, government‘s interests. This thesis considers the extent to which this delicate balance has been achieved. It embarks upon an analysis of the legal position, complemented by a qualitative analysis of interviews with Solicitors-General, and others closely associated with the office. I conclude that removal of the Solicitor-General from the political realm has not been wholly achieved. However, I argue that politics and the public interest remain legitimate, and not inappropriate, influences on the office in many circumstances. The Solicitor-General acts as counsel for the Crown. The Crown‘s legitimacy rests on a complex amalgam of democratic and liberal theory that emphasises empowerment and the necessity of restraint. Because of the Solicitor-General‘s close relationship with the Crown, it is inevitable that political and public interest considerations continue to influence and inform the office. These considerations dictate that the advisory and advocacy functions must be performed differently, they influence how the office ought to resolve legal ambiguity, and they import an obligation to advise the government, not only on the legal position, but on the impact of policies on the whole of government, the long-term interests of the polity, and those principles that underpin our constitutional order – which I have termed ‘core government principles‘. Emphasis was placed on the structural independence of the statutory office when it was created. However, in practice the office‘s independence largely rests on the commitment of individual officeholders to this independence. This commitment can be compromised because the office operates in a wider bureaucratic and government setting where at times it may be competing for legal work. My findings reveal that these and other pressures have resulted in two different approaches. Both have the object of securing the place of the Solicitor-General in the government order, but each emphasises the importance of independence or involvement. I call these the ‘team member‘ and ‘autonomous expert‘ approaches.