Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister confirm that yesterday he wrote to me in his capacity as Minister for Social Services stating that he would refuse to table certain documents asked about in question time on the basis that the WA government asserted legal privilege over those documents, even though the minister was no longer a member of the WA government when he received them?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. As a matter of background, and as was noted in the Attorney-General's statement, I spoke with the Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis, on 3 March 2016, and the terms of that conversation are very accurately described by the Attorney-General in his statement where he notes that I relayed my own knowledge, my background knowledge, of the Western Australian government's attempt to end the Bell winding-up. I also offered a view that a statutory scheme to bring the winding-up to a swifter conclusion and with a better return to creditors was, in principle, a good thing. I did note to him in that conversation that I had not been involved in any discussions between Mr Hockey's office and Western Australian ministers, and that I had not, at that time, the resources to form a view on the constitutional revenue aspects of the legislation.

The reason I went to see Attorney-General George Brandis was because, as also noted in the Attorney-General's statement, on 2 March 2016 my office had received an email from the Western Australian State Solicitor. That contained a summary briefing and slideshow of the history of the Bell matter, as well as copies of an exchange of letters between Dr Nahan and Mr Hockey. I did not pass those documents on to any of my federal colleagues or anyone outside my office; rather, because the issue was outside my portfolio responsibilities, I considered that the best course was to inform Attorney-General Brandis, which I did on 3 March 2016. I informed him that I thought it was advisable that he contact the Western Australian Attorney General directly, which I now understand he did the next day. I did not provide any documents to Attorney-General George Brandis, considering it appropriate that he receive any views of the Western Australian Attorney General directly from him. When I spoke to Ms O'Dwyer on 4 March 2016, it was, similarly, to put to her that, as Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, it might be advisable for her to contact the Western Australian Attorney General, which, again, I understand she did the next day.

I understand that yesterday correspondence was sent to Attorney-General George Brandis from Michael Mischin, the Attorney General of Western Australia. I am informed that, in that correspondence, the Western Australian government considered that the documents that were provided to me on 2 March 2016 contained repetitions of material relating to the Bell litigation which I was previously apprised of in my former role as Attorney General of Western Australia and Treasurer for Western Australia, and that the Western Australian government asserts legal professional privilege over the documents, as well as claiming a public interest immunity against their production in present and future legal proceedings.