Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

He is supposed to be, Senator Cash. The Attorney-General is supposed to be someone who is beyond reproach in their administration of justice of justice but, instead, in Senator Brandis we have someone who will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent the Senate from getting the truth and from getting basic information about how he has conducted himself in this role.

To briefly recap what we have ascertained so far over the course of this inquiry, this really involves the apparent deal between the federal government and the Western Australian government to turn a blind eye to over $300 billion in taxes that were owed by the Bell group of companies to the Australian taxpayer. It does seem clear that the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, did reach some sort of a deal with the Western Australian government to forgive the payment of those taxes, but Senator Brandis's involvement in this matter more concerned the attempts that were made to pressure the Australian Taxation Office to not pursue those taxes in our courts. We will all remember the statement from the Attorney-General in late November last year when he told the Senate that his first personal involvement in this case was on 3 March 2016, and of course before too long he had one of his own Liberal counterparts, the former Western Australian Attorney-General, come out publicly and say that that was not correct and that he had actually spoken to Senator Brandis in early February. Senator Brandis had one of his now infamous memory losses. He does not recall that conversation and maintains this ridiculous fiction that having a conversation with an Attorney-General from Western Australia does not amount to personal involvement in the matter.

What the inquiry has turned to more recently is the apparent efforts by Senator Brandis, or his office on his behalf, to nobble the Australian tax office and to prevent them from taking legal action to try to recover over $300 million in unpaid taxes owed to the Commonwealth taxpayer. Most Australian taxpayers would want to make sure that companies who owe taxes repay those taxes and do the right thing, and they would expect the Australian tax office to pursue those taxes on their behalf. But what we have uncovered over the course of this inquiry is an apparent attempt by the Attorney-General or his office to prevent the Australian tax office from doing its job. Even today, those who have been listening to Senator Brandis will have noted his slippery use of language to yet again try to evade responsibility in this matter. What he has told the Senate again today is that no direction was issued to the Australian tax office to prevent them from taking action. That is not the subject of the questions that have been asked. What has been asked is: what directions were drafted by his office, or what action did his office take to try to prepare a direction, to stop the Australian tax office from taking action?

In an earlier hearing in this inquiry, we asked whether the Attorney-General himself directed the tax office, or prepared a direction to the tax office, to stop them from interfering in this case. We were told very clearly by the Attorney-General's Department that the Attorney-General had not done so. But, when we went on to ask whether the Attorney-General's office had prepared a direction to stop the ATO from doing its job, or had asked the Attorney-General's Department to prepare such a direction, we were not told the answer to that one. Privilege was claimed. A public interest immunity was claimed. And we are now told by the Attorney-General that it is against the public interest to reveal whether his office directed the ATO or attempted to direct the ATO from interfering in this case.

What I cannot understand is why it does not constitute legal advice and it is not privileged information to tell the Senate that the Attorney-General did not direct the ATO, or did not seek to prevent the ATO, but, when we want to ask questions about what the Attorney-General's office has done, all of a sudden the walls of privilege go up. There is a clear inconsistency and a clear double standard that is being used by the Attorney-General and his department to try to hide the involvement of the Attorney-General's office in this matter.

This week we received clear evidence from the Australian tax office. We asked them again whether they had become aware of any discussions about the prospect of a direction being issued. What they advised the Senate inquiry was that senior Australian tax office officials were aware of discussions and were party to discussions with officers from Treasury and the Australian Government Solicitor about attempts being made by the Attorney-General's office to prevent them from interfering in this case.

Everyone accepts that ultimately no direction was issued, and I suspect that is due to the efforts of the Australian tax office in fighting back against Senator Brandis and his attempts to nobble this case. But what we now have is clear evidence on the record where senior officers of the Australian tax office have said that they were having discussions with their counterparts in Treasury and the Australian Government Solicitor about efforts that were being made to stop them from interfering in this case.

It is about time that the Attorney-General finally came clean with the Senate. He is the first law officer of this country. He is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to be someone who is just quietly doing his job rather than distracting the government from their agenda. But, time after time after time, we have to spend the Senate's time trying to get answers out of this Attorney-General, and, in the process, he goes on to embarrass all of his colleagues and the government as a whole. The Attorney-General should just answer clearly today whether his office requested that a direction be drafted to prevent the Australian tax office from interfering in this case, and then these questions would cease.