Samantha Maiden | Why engage the big brain before an outburst? Ask Mark Dreyfus

His refusal to apologise over the rolling immigration detainee debacle may have given Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus more reasons to feel sorry, writes Samantha Maiden.

Everyone has met one in their day-to-day lives, folks who might best be described as smart, but dumb people.

Sometimes groaning in law degrees, doctorates of philosophy and other degrees from fancy universities, these highly accomplished peacocks like to strut and tut.

And then they say something so dumb, you go: “Wow. You are a deadset idiot.”

Enter stage left, the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus KC.

He blew up at Sky News journalist Olivia Caisley on Wednesday, after she dared to ask whether the public were owed an apology over the rolling debacle unfolding over the immigration detainees released as a result of the High Court’s ruling.

When she tried to interject, he scolded her like a middle-aged maths teacher with poor control of their charges.

Attorney-General of Australia Mark Dreyfus at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

“Do not interrupt,” he snapped, pointing his finger at her.

“I will not be apologising for acting in accordance with a High Court decision. Your question is an absurd one!”

The decision has resulted in the release of almost 150 immigration detainees, including a number who have been convicted of violent crimes into the community.

“Do you owe an apology to those in the community that have been subjected to misdeeds by some of these people?,’’ Caisley had asked.

And then, the Attorney-General lost it.

“I want to suggest to you that that question is an absurd question,’’ he thundered.

“You are asking a cabinet minister, three ministers of the Crown to apologise for upholding the law of Australia for acting in accordance with the law of Australia for following the instructions of the High Court of Australia.

“I will not be apologising for upholding the law. I will not be apologising for pursuing the rule of law. And I will not be apologising for acting – do not interrupt – I will not be apologising for acting in accordance with a High Court decision.”

Au contraire, my learned friend. Mr Dreyfus’ televised outburst was dumb for a number of reasons.

Since the decision of the High Court, four of the released detainees have been arrested. There have been genuine questions of why the government was not better prepared for the decision.

Normal citizens going about their business have a right to be concerned at what the hell the government is doing about it.

Now Mr Dreyfus will wear it like a crown of thorns, with the list growing each day over the alleged crimes of the people they were forced to release by the High Court.

The Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil keeps telling us that if she had her way they would still be locked up, a smarter response politically than her more senior colleague.

Of course, she overstepped the mark too when she foolishly suggested Peter Dutton was siding with pedophiles when he didn’t immediately back the government’s proposed solution to the mess.

Mr Dutton is many things, but a friend of child sex offenders is not one of them.

And now we have an Adelaide woman who was allegedly subject to an indecent assault on Saturday night in a motel by one of the released detainees, a convicted sex predator with a record of attacking elderly women.

Do you think his alleged victim is feeling comforted by Mr Dreyfus pontificating that he won’t apologise to her?

Pending the outcome of the legal matter if someone is convicted, he should.

The rule of law, in essence, is about the idea that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.

It is more simply explained by the idea that “no one is above the law”.

Most people can agree with that concept broadly, but what of the right of the community to be safe and not concerned about an influx of convicted criminals previously deemed by the government as too dangerous to let loose on the streets?

The rule of law should also protect them too, from the silly decisions of judges and politicians.

The rule of law implies that every citizen, including lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges are subject to the same rules.

Carrying on and calling journalists questions’ “absurd”, shouting at them not to interrupt him, is more of a divine right of kings vibe than Aristotle.

After the event, there was much made of the fact that Olivia Caisley is a young, female reporter.

Mr Dreyfus blew up at Sky News journalist Olivia Caisley during a press conference on Wednesday. Picture: Supplied

This demeans a good journalist. It would be offensive if Mr Dreyfus made his comments to a man or a woman, although picking on a younger one is the mark of a political coward.

Caisley herself breezily and accurately observed that the question clearly got under his skin.

Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley called on the Attorney-General to apologise for shouting down “legitimate questions from a capable and effective young woman in the press gallery.”

“It’s behaviour that is disgraceful. It is not acceptable. It shouldn’t happen, particularly as the first law officer of this land should not be shouting, raising his voice and speaking in such a derogatory tone,” Ms Ley said.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong observed that the Attorney-General may look back at the exchange with regret.

“We’ve seen in this place at times people behave in ways in which perhaps in hindsight they might think was unwise,” she told the Senate.

She’s right and Mark Dreyfus was wrong. He should apologise to voters and to Olivia Caisley.

And then he should try and engage that big brain of his more before he engages his mouth.

Originally published as Samantha Maiden | Why engage the big brain before an outburst? Ask Mark Dreyfus