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

This afternoon, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the Bell Group litigation, together with the documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Today, as the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I have tabled a report into the nature and scope of any agreement reached by the Commonwealth and the Western Australian governments in relation to the distribution of the proceeds of the liquidation of and litigation concerning the Bell group of companies. In 2015, we found ourselves in a very invidious position, with the former Western Australian Liberal government passing the Bell Group Companies (Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds) Act, which created a statutory authority to determine the distribution of some $1.7 billion that was owed to creditors, with a large sum being owed to the Australian Taxation Office. The legislation prioritised the WA government's claims for Bell Group liquidation funds before the claims of other creditors, including debts to the Commonwealth. This is no way to solve Western Australia's GST imbalance, particularly as it was proved to be unconstitutional.

At the time, the Western Australian Labor opposition raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bell act and were assured by the former government, including then Treasurer of Western Australia and now opposition leader, Dr Mike Nahan, that the then government had struck a deal with the Liberal Commonwealth government, who had, according to them, undertaken not to intervene in any proceedings challenging the constitutionality of this act. With the Commonwealth having such a large amount of revenue at stake in the settlement of the Bell Group matter—at least several hundred million dollars—any consideration of making a deal with Western Australia to forego this revenue would be a serious matter and a matter of important national interest. It should be of great concern to us in this place and to the Australian people. It should be of great concern to this place if one of this country's most senior ministers, indeed the most senior law officer in the land, was planning to issue a direction which could prevent the Commonwealth from recovering these funds owed to it.

Throughout the course of this inquiry, the committee obtained information which indicated that the Attorney-General was indeed considering issuing a direction to the ATO. The ATO gave evidence to the committee that they heard rumours that the Attorney-General was considering issuing a direction which would prevent them from intervening in the High Court challenge to the Bell act. The committee was advised that the direction being contemplated was under the Judiciary Act and that it was either the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General's Department or the Attorney-General's office who were considering issuing this direction. As it turns out, the ATO were so concerned they sought permission from the Attorney-General's Department to seek advice from the Solicitor-General concerning the ATO's options should the ATO issue such a direction. Indeed, the committee believes it is fair to infer, from the proximity of the discussions about the intervention in the Bell Group litigation, that a previous direction issued by the Attorney-General was a consequence of the ATO's intervention in the Bell Group litigation. That matter has indeed been a matter of previous inquiry and debate in this chamber—the Solicitor-General's provision of assistance to the Australian Taxation Office and the Solicitor-General's strong view that the Attorney-General ought to intervene.

It also became clear to us throughout this inquiry that there were some in the government who did not want us to find out this important information. We faced, in this inquiry, a great many challenges—hitting roadblocks at every step. Government members have acted with disregard for the processes of the Senate throughout the conduct of this inquiry. The initial hearings were entirely run by opposition and crossbench senators, with the government withdrawing the capacity for us to contribute to quorums. When they did appear, they deliberately tried to interfere with the conduct of the inquiry by interjecting and attempting to stop the committee from asking questions. It is clear that all attempts have been made by the government to prevent the Senate from holding the Attorney-General to account on this issue. As was noted in the interim report, a significant number of questions taken on notice were delivered late, were often incomplete and contained insubstantial responses. The government still, despite motions and orders for production of documents to the Senate, refuses to provide documents requested by the committee.

The Attorney-General's has also made several claims of public interest immunity, and the report recommends that the Senate reject the assertions of the Attorney-General, which claim legal and professional privilege are, in and of themselves, a valid justification to refuse to provide this information. This has never been an accepted ground for the claim of public interest immunity, and it should be rejected. The report, indeed, recommends that the Senate condemn the Attorney-General's wilful defiance of these Senate standards. It is completely unacceptable that the Leader of the Government in this place should show disregard for us in this way. It is a complete breach of duty.

Perhaps most importantly, the report recommends that the Senate reminds senators of the need to always act in the best interests of the Australian people and to do so in a transparent manner, and that the Attorney-General should allow independent, statutory authorities to act without interference from the government. It should not be acceptable to us in this place that the Australian government—that our Attorney-General, Senator Brandis—would even consider acting outside the interests of the Commonwealth and the Australian people. It should not be acceptable to us, in this place, that the Australian government has shown such a complete disregard for the processes of the parliament and our committees, and made it difficult for the committee to inquire into such a serious matter. I commend the report to the Senate.