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

by leave—Can I indicate to the chamber that at approximately noon I will be seeking leave to make a statement in relation to the matter of the Bell liquidation. I should mention that within the last hour I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, foreshadowing a motion to require me to make a statement. It has been my intention, since well before I received Senator Wong's letter, to seek leave to make a statement. Therefore, no such motion is necessary and, in my view, it is not appropriate. However, I had a discussion with Senator Wong and, for reasons that seem satisfactory to her, she has indicated to me that the opposition will nevertheless move the motion requiring me to do that which I had already proposed to do. Given that there is a commonality of view about the desirability of a statement, the government will not oppose that motion.

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

I first seek leave to make a short statement and I foreshadow that I will then be seeking leave to move the motion that Senator Brandis has foreshadowed.

Leave granted.

In relation to Senator Brandis's contribution, it is the case that the opposition, and I think many senators, believe it is appropriate for the Attorney-General to make a statement in this chamber responding to some allegations which have been made in the West Australian and in other places. I note to date he has not provided any public response. We are of the view that that is required. I note he has agreed to attend the chamber at noon to do so. By way of explanation to the chamber, we believe the motion is required to set up the architecture to ensure that occurs. Obviously we will be in the middle of debate, probably on the ABCC or other legislation, at that time—there will be a motion before the chair—and we would like to ensure that the Senate does what we believe it should do, which is to require an explanation from the minister concerned.