Advice from OIL sets off fiery questions from oily senator about the Malaysian Solution ... Meeting a dead-bat at the estimates committee ... What's happened to the federal courts Bill? ... Meanwhile, there's a quiet review into integrating the "backend" of federal courts and tribunals ... Polly Peck reports from Canberra 
Three times a year weary public servants trudge up the Hill for grilling by smug senators at estimates committees.
It is not difficult for even the thickest party hack lounging on the red leather to dig-up some exciting, new ineptitude on the part of the government.
One of the more fruitful lines of inquiry was Gillard's Malaysian Solution, kyboshed 6-1 by the High Court and them reintroduced into parliament with no prospect of getting through.
Last week saw the head of the AG's department, Roger (Bow-Tie) Wilkins, and the minister in the chair Joe Ludwig, go to inordinate lengths to shield the head of the departmental office of international law from questions by members of the senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.
Only last month, the government rather unwisely revealed OIL was "closely consulted" and had "confirmed" the Malaysia legislation was "consistent with Australia's international obligations".
Anywhere else this would have constituted a waiver of privilege, but having released advice from solicitor general Stephen Gageler the government was in no mind to release anything further.
Wilkins and Ludwig steadfastly blocked any questions about the OIL advice from frothy George (Soapie) Brandis.
Senator Brandis: I am asking you, Mr Manning, in your official capacity as the senior representative of the office of international law, whether in your view -
Senator Ludwig: That is another way of asking the same question.
Senator Brandis: The arrangement signed by the government of Australia and the government of Malaysia on 31 July is in all respects compliant with Australia's obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Mr Wilkins: Perhaps the best way of characterising it is that we provided advice to the government and the government is happy that the Malaysian deal is consistent with and has expressed the view that they believe it is consistent with Australia's international obligations. Further than that I do not think it is fair to go. I certainly do not think it is fair to ask Mr Manning those questions.
Senator Brandis: Mr Wilkins, you are a reasonably experienced public servant who has appeared before this committee many times. Might I just observe that it has not gone unnoticed by anybody following these proceedings that you are shielding Mr Manning from answering my question.
Senator Ludwig: Let me shield Mr Manning. It is not up to you, Senator Brandis, to accuse Mr Wilkins -
On it went for a good part of an hour without much illumination of the nature of the 11 pieces of advice OIL had given the government.
* * *
With all the time consumed trying to explore Julia's foreign folly, there was nothing left over to investigate what on earth is going on in relation to federal courts and tribunals.
Legislation to merge the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court and create the Australian Military Court has been listed for introduction into parliament for nearly the last two years but - to use suitable military parlance - it has gone AWOL.
In the meantime, the insurgency led by the FMC Workers Liberation Front has gathered pace demanding better pay and conditions for its sadly under-appreciated and unloved members.
Having secured themselves their own cookie jar and an increase in superannuation entitlements in the last budget, the Liberation Front is now set to argue in the High Court their independence is being threatened by being denied a full judicial pension.
Maybe the real problem is their failure to appreciate how impoverished they would be when they accepted the $330,000 plus job.
And federal madges haven't picked the best time to come with outstretched hands.
Currently underway is a quiet review of courts and tribunals.
After agitating on the issue for yonks, the Department of Finance finally got its way earlier this year and had a review established to explore "options for shared services and administrative arrangements".
Headed by Mallys' consultant Stephen Skehill the review team has been meeting with senior managers of federal tribunals and courts to assess whether they are "financially viable in their current form".
With Wayne Swan looking under every couch and car seat for a few more savings to enable the government to meet its goal of returning to surplus next year, it doesn't take much to imagine the outcome of this review- but don't be surprised if the Federal Court being a major winner.
And tribunals shouldn't expect any easier time if there is a change of government. Joe Hockey will be looking for even more savings after they have repealed the carbon and mining taxes, filled a $10 billion blackhole and handed out tax cuts.