Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Well, what an unstructured, irrelevant rant we have just heard from Senator Back. I am just going to calmly explain why nothing Senator Back just said is relevant to the crucial question before this chamber and the crucial question Attorney-General Brandis has consistently failed to answer over two days now in this chamber and two days preceding that in the public conversation in Australia.

What the Bell act did or did not do is irrelevant here. We all know what the Bell Act did. What the Attorney-General said or did not say on behalf of the ATO is irrelevant here. What the Attorney did or did not do in terms of the Commonwealth joining the High Court case in regard to the Bell act is irrelevant here. There are two relevant matters. Firstly, was a deal cooked up between the Commonwealth Liberal government and the Western Australian Liberal government that the Commonwealth would either not challenge the legislation in the High Court—the Bell act—or not join a challenge to the Bell act in the High Court or not run a particular argument against the Bell act in the High Court? That is the first question, and we know the answer to the question, because Dr Nahan confessed it in the Western Australian parliament when he said very clearly that there was an agreement between the Western Australian government and the Commonwealth government for the Commonwealth not to oppose the Bell act.

So, we know the deal was cooked up, because the Liberals in Western Australia have confessed on the record in the Western Australian parliament that a deal was cooked up. So for Senator Brandis to come in here yesterday and say that from his viewpoint there was no deal—it does not stack up. Just to be clear, the Greens do not make an allegation that Senator Brandis was involved in cooking up the deal. That, I have no doubt, was done by former Treasurer Joe Hockey and the Western Australian government. Where Senator Brandis comes in is that he was tapped to give effect to the deal. He was asked, almost certainly, by former Treasurer Hockey to instruct then Solicitor-General Gleeson to not run a particular line of argument in the High Court case relating to the Bell act. That particular line of argument of course was section 109 in the Constitution, ultimately the one that Mr Gleeson did run in the High Court and the one the High Court agreed with to the extent that it voted seven to zero to strike down the Bell act. It was an open and shut case. The Bell act was clearly unconstitutional. Anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge could have seen that. And that is why the deal was stitched up.

Senator Brandis has consistently refused to answer that question. That is the substantive most serious allegation before him. I have asked him on multiple occasions in this place. Senator Watt has asked him on multiple occasions in this place. And he has refused to answer. Either he has talked about something else entirely, as he is wont to do consistently, or he has drawn the veil of legal privilege down and said, 'I'm not going to answer that, because it's legally privileged.' Well, this Attorney-General is the most selective user of legal privilege I have seen in my political career, and that is saying something, because I have dealt with people like Paul Lennon in the Tasmanian parliament, who used to use it all the time, as does the current Liberal government in Tasmania. Senator Brandis is quite happy to waive legal privilege when it suits him politically, but of course when it suits him politically to claim legal privilege, that is exactly what he does.

So, this Senate voted quite comfortably today to send this matter to an inquiry. It is worth pointing out that the motion actually compels the attendance of Senator Brandis and also Senator Cormann, who, of course, was the cigar-smoking mate of Joe Hockey and finance minister at the time that this sordid affair went down. I look forward to this Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry. I believe that we will have the opportunity to, once again, ask these questions. We will find out whether the Attorney-General believes in the rule of law in this country and whether he is a fit and proper person to hold that office. (Time expired)