Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. The Bell Group case began in the High Court in November 2015. A barrister appeared for the Commonwealth in the High Court on 8 February in the Bell Group case. How is it possible that the Attorney-General was not aware of this litigation until March?

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable gentleman is asking me to express an opinion on the state of mind of the Attorney-General, to hypothesise about the Attorney-General. I think the member for Isaacs's constant obsession with the Attorney-General is one that we have all indulged.

Mr Keogh interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Burt is warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have put up with it. His colleagues find it humorous. I think all of us now find it tiresome. Let's just set a few obvious facts into context. The first thing is that the Bell Group litigation had been going on for 20 years. It had become a modern Jarndyce and Jarndyce, chewing up the assets of the estate of Bell Group, to the detriment, inevitably, of the creditors. That much, I think, is perfectly plain. The Western Australian government sought to find a solution to bring the litigation to an end. They introduced—

Mr Keogh interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Burt will leave under 94(a). You have been warned already.

The member for Burt then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They passed some legislation in the Western Australian parliament, which was challenged in the High Court. In the final event, as honourable members know, the Australian Taxation Office was represented. The Commonwealth was represented. The legislation was struck down on a basis that was—I suspect the honourable member and I might be able to find common ground on this at least—fairly predictable, and it came to an end. But the reality is that the interests of the Commonwealth were always protected. The interests of the ATO were always protected. But, it has to be said, this endless litigation is continuing and the only beneficiaries are the members of the legal profession.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members for Hume and Shortland are warned.