Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. The minister, in relation to the Liberal Western Australian government's legislation—giving it priority over other Bell Group creditors, found to be inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation—said, 'Certainly the Australian government was aware through the Treasurer Joe Hockey.' When did the minister and senator for Western Australia first become aware of the Liberal-Nationals federal government's arrangement not to challenge the validity of the legislation?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McAllister for that question. In relation to that latter assertion, I never became aware of that, because never was such an arrangement entered into it. I think Senator Brandis has made very clear that there is no arrangement. There is a notification in the letter of 13 April 2015, which has been well publicised, by WA Treasurer Nahan, of the intention of introducing certain legislation and notifying the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, that the Western Australian government would 'rely on the power of the state to displace certain provisions of the Corporations Act, which, as you will recall from when you negotiated referral of corporations law powers from the states, was explicitly preserved in the Corporations Act'. And then the Treasurer responded on 29 April thanking him for that notification and also acknowledging that this was what they were proposing to do and making this important point: 'It is important that the ensuing process result to as great an extent as possible in fair outcomes for creditors, consistent with their legal positions before the legislation takes effect' et cetera.

It is interesting: I am not surprised that no WA Labor senator asked me that question, because of course the WA Labor Party is at the heart of this most shameful episode in Western Australian political history, because the taxpayers of Western Australia and the taxpayers of Australia are still paying the price for the deep-seated corruption in Labor's WA Inc. period. Most of the business partners of the Burke Labor government, the Peter Dowding Labor government, are no longer with us, but this was a period of deep-seated corruption between the WA Labor state government at the time and sections of the business community in Western Australia at the time. Taxpayers in Western Australian and taxpayers in Australia are still paying the price for it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Notwithstanding these assertions and the semantics around arrangements and agreements, I am going to continue to ask about these circumstances. Did the minister have any contact with his colleagues either in the Liberal Western Australian government or in the Liberal-Nationals federal government in relation to the arrangement? If so, when and with whom did this contact occur?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not aware of any arrangement. There is no evidence of any arrangement. I have not had any contact with anyone in relation to a non-existing arrangement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did the finance minister consider it appropriate for Commonwealth taxpayers to forgo the $300 million owed to the Australia Taxation Office? And did he consider it a reasonable cost to serve the Liberal Party's political benefit?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that you did not write that question, Senator McAllister, but if you had listened to any of the previous answers you would actually not have asked that supplementary question. I completely reject the premise of the question. The Australian Taxation Office did what the Australian Taxation Office had a responsibility to do. The Australian Taxation Office, acting independently, enforces the Australian taxation laws as it sees fit and the Commonwealth 100 per cent supports the actions taken by the Australian Taxation Office.