Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. When and how did the Attorney-General first become aware his department provided inaccurate evidence to the parliament regarding the provision of the Monis letter to the Martin Place siege inquiry? When did he first inform the Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's office of this fact?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 27 May—the Thursday of the first estimates week—the deputy secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Ms Katherine Jones, gave evidence to Senate estimates that a letter from Monis to me, and the response of the Attorney-General's Department, was provided to and considered by the Sydney siege review. That evidence was incorrect, and Ms Jones wrote to the legal and constitutional affairs committee to correct the record on the afternoon of 4 June, that is, the following Thursday afternoon. I was first advised that the evidence given by Ms Jones on 27 May was wrong on the afternoon of Monday 1 June. I immediately asked the secretary of my department, Mr Moraitis, to conduct an urgent review to establish the facts. Mr Moraitis reported to me early in the afternoon of Thursday 4 June, and confirmed that it was indeed the case that Ms Jones's evidence was wrong. I immediately advised the foreign minister of that, and both she and I immediately corrected the record.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Attorney-General first learned of the error on Monday 1 June, why did it take the Attorney-General's Department and the foreign minister representing the Attorney-General three full days—three full days—to correct misleading evidence to both chambers of the parliament?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was three days, Senator Wong, and there is reason for that which I am sure you will understand. On the previous Thursday I was told one thing. On the following Monday, I was told something diametrically opposite. So I wanted to establish the facts—having been told two things that were entirely at variance from one another in the space of three business days. That is why, before going into the public arena, I wanted to satisfy myself that the second advice was correct and the first advice was wrong, rather than the first advice correct and the second advice wrong. For that reason, I instructed that an urgent review be undertaken to establish the facts. That occurred. And might I remind you, Senator Wong, that once it was confirmed to me that the evidence provided on 27 May was erroneous, I corrected the record in sufficient time for you to ask me questions about it that afternoon. (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Did the Attorney-General or his department consult the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prior to making the claim on 28 May that: 'the letter and my department's reply were both placed before the inquiry into the Martin Place siege'?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I certainly didn't, Senator; no. Nor would I as a matter of routine. And, if I can seek your indulgence to complete my answer to your first supplementary question in relation to the foreign minister: of course, the foreign minister would not have been in a position in any event, to correct the record because she was overseas until that Thursday morning. She corrected the record immediately she was told that an error had been established, as did I.