Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Attorney, I draw your attention to a letter dated 6 December 2022 from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers to Clayton Utz in relation to a potential civil claim, which may have been brought but never was, by Brittany Higgins against Senator Reynolds. In that letter, at paragraph 3, lawyers acting for the Commonwealth state that you personally exercised a discretion to control the conduct of Senator Reynolds's defence on the basis that the Commonwealth was paying for that defence. A mediation had been scheduled between Ms Higgins and Senator Reynolds, but, according to that letter, at your request you directed Senator Reynolds not attend the mediation, at paragraph 7, and that she not seek to do so. You also effectively directed Senator Reynolds not to make any public comment about the mediation or the civil claim against her, the Commonwealth or Senator Cash. In effect, Attorney, according to that letter, you sought to gag Senator Reynolds.

Attorney, you exercised your discretion in circumstances where you were in a clear conflict of interest. You had made numerous public statements supporting Ms Higgins, as did the now Prime Minister, as did the now Minister for Finance. It follows that, pursuant to section 83 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulation 2017, in circumstances where there was a conflict of interest by you, you ought not have been the individual responsible for exercising a discretion to take control of the conduct of the defence.

Attorney, why did you exercise that discretion to block Senator Reynolds's involvement at the mediation in circumstances where she may have been able to assist the Commonwealth in the preparation of its position at the mediation? Second, does the Attorney accept that he acted in so doing whilst he had a conflict of interest? Third, does the Attorney consider that the payment of Commonwealth moneys in circumstances where Senator Reynolds did not have an opportunity to challenge the allegations, albeit in a mediation, was an appropriate expenditure of taxpayers' money? Fourth, as a result of that conflict of interest will the Attorney refer himself to the National Anti-Corruption Commission? Fifth, I seek leave to table a letter from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz lawyers dated 6 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter from Clayton Utz in response, dated 9 December 2022. I also seek leave to table a letter in response to that from HWL Ebsworth to Dr Ashley Tsacalos of Clayton Utz, dated 7 February 2023.

Leave not granted.

It is very disappointing that the government has taken the opportunity to not allow leave to be granted for documents which clearly show that the Attorney was in a conflict of interest when he exercised his discretion. It is very unfortunate that the government has taken this position, and the government should reconsider its position at the earliest opportunity.

See this speech in context