Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I present the interim report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the Bell litigation, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

  That the Senate take note of the report.

In doing so, the findings of our interim report should be of great concern to the chamber. We make findings that call on the Senate to take action, and I can outline why. We have been unable to table a substantive report according to the time line, and that is because Senator Brandis, as he has shown in this chamber time and time again, has not only refused to answer the questions put to him, but also, more to the point, he has obfuscated and refused to allow public servants to also answer questions.

What we know about the issue is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Australian Taxation Office. It is clear that the Commonwealth is entitled to significant funds from the Bell liquidation—in the order of at least several hundred million dollars. In taking the committee evidence, we have sought to work through and to understand the extent to which the Commonwealth was involved in conversations to subvert the money that the ATO has a right to by supporting a deal with the previous state government in Western Australia to subvert the order of funds by passing legislation through their parliament. We know there have been allegations that the Attorney-General was involved in the potential issuing of a direction to prevent the Commonwealth from intervening, so therefore taking the side of the state government, and putting at risk those funds that the ATO should have a right to.

We have put many questions to Senator Brandis and to government officials, of which a vastly overwhelming number have not been answered. I can highlight for the Senate today some of the exchanges that took place between Senator Brandis and me. For example:

CHAIR: There were some 30 questions taken on notice that the department did not answer on 17 February, so the committee is asking if you can provide the answers from the department or, alternatively … specify the harm to the public interest that would arise from answering the questions.

The due date for answering those questions was some time ago. Senator Brandis told the committee hearing:

… I am sure that can be done.

He said:

… I will ensure that the questions are answered, and those answers, of course, may include any appropriate claims of immunity.

That is from the committee Hansard from our hearing on 8 March. There were many similar exchanges in the committee. What happened is that the deadline passed for the submission of questions on notice and no answers were forthcoming. This has put the committee in a very difficult position in terms of its accountability to this chamber in meeting the demands of our terms of reference to ascertain the facts in relation to the Bell matter.

If Senator Brandis has nothing to hide, then it should be a simple process for him to answer those questions. I am quite certain that the department prepared answers to our questions and provided them to him to examine. He could have considered which of those he would like to mount a public interest immunity claim for. Senator Brandis set about simply claiming legal professional privilege, as did the department. Legal professional privilege is not an accepted public interest immunity ground in and of itself. The specific harm that comes from the disclosure of information must be specified in making a public interest immunity claim. Not only has the committee received no answers but it has also received no justification that would demonstrate any reason to not have provided those answers.

We have been put in a very difficult position. We have put forward recommendations to the Senate that call on this chamber to:

… reaffirm its commitment to the principles of ministerial responsibility and accountability regarding the answering of questions and provision information to the Senate and it's committees in accordance with the standing orders and other orders of continuing effect, and notes that all senators, including ministers, are responsible and accountable to the Senate.

We are asking:

… the Senate to insist that the Attorney-General respond to the committee's questions, noting the failure of the Attorney-General and officers of the Attorney-General's Department to provide responses to many of the questions that would enable clear facts to be established regarding—

this matter. That is the plea that the committee makes.

I know from briefly examining the dissenting report of the government that they have attacked the processes of the committee and the lack of time they have had to consider these issues. I know Senator Macdonald will stand up and debate these things, but because I cannot rebut him I will pre-empt some of what he has to say—