Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Yesterday the Attorney-General failed to either rule out or confirm whether the federal Liberal-National government had a deal or understanding with the Western Australian Liberal government that the Commonwealth would not contest the Western Australian legislation. The Prime Minister, in the other place, twice refused to rule out or confirm whether such a deal or understanding existed. Will the Attorney-General please tell the Senate yes or no—was there any such deal or understanding between the governments or any of their representatives?

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

Senator Sterle, I am sorry if I did not make myself clearly enough understood, because I did address the issue in my statement. This is what I said:

… the only written record of those dealings—

between Mr Hockey and Dr Nahan; that is, the exchange of letters of April 2015—

does not in my view constitute or evidence such an agreement.

'Does not constitute or evidence such an agreement.'

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

Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order.

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

The point of order is on relevance. We did not ask what the Attorney's opinion as to the nature of the letters was, which is the aspect of the statement to which he is referring. Senator Sterle, as is his wont, asked a very direct question: will the Attorney-General tell the Senate yes or no—was there any such deal or understanding between the governments or any of their representatives? We did not ask about the letters. We know what he said in his statement. He tries to avoid answering the question by referencing the letters—we are not referencing the letters at all; we are asking him to tell the Senate was there was a deal or understanding or not.

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

My understanding of what the Attorney-General has been indicating is that there was no such deal.

Opposition senators interjecting—

On my left! A point of order has been raised and I have been asked to rule on it. At this stage I am listening to the Attorney-General's answer. The Attorney-General has indicated, in my view, that by inference there was no such deal. But I will allow the Attorney-General to continue answering the question.

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

Through you, Mr President, the way I try to approach these questions, Senator Sterle, is to develop premises to a conclusion but for your sake I will state the conclusion first and then explain the premises: no there was not—not in my opinion and not to my knowledge. I do not believe there was a deal, I have no knowledge of a deal. The only evidence I have seen does not support the proposition that there was a deal.

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

Senator Sterle, a supplementary question.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to refer to the Western Australian Treasurer, Dr Mike Nahan, who told the Western Australian parliament:

We had a deal with the commonwealth that it would not oppose the Bell act.

Does the Attorney-General believe that Dr Nahan was misleading the Western Australian parliament?

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

No, I do not, Senator Sterle. In answer to Senator Macdonald's question, I reflected on the years when I used to practice at the bar and I tell you what that taught me, Senator Sterle, because I largely practised in commercial matters: it is the most common thing in the world for two people to have a discussion and both of them, honestly and in good faith, to take a different recollection away from that discussion. Just because the documents do not support or evidence a deal does not mean that Dr Nahan is being dishonest—

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

So he's stupid; you're saying he's stupid.

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

No, I am not. I am not saying that at all, Senator Wong. I am saying that I do not for a moment doubt Dr Nahan's honesty or good faith in his recollection of his discussions with Mr Hockey, but I have no knowledge of those discussions and the only documentary evidence of them I have seen does not support that conclusion.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Can I have a little bit more quiet on my left. Not only do I need to hear the questions but I need to hear the answers.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Order, Senator Collins! Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again refer to Dr Nahan, who told the Western Australian parliament:

The understanding was that the commonwealth would not use the powers under the Corporations Act … and it would not take an action to the High Court on the ATO and tax issues.

Does the Attorney-General believe that Dr Nahan was misleading the Western Australian parliament?

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

I believe Dr Nahan is an honest man, and I am sure whatever Dr Nahan said to the Western Australian parliament was said in good faith. However—as I said to you in my answer to your previous question, Senator Sterle—just because two people who participate in a conversation have a different interpretation of that conversation does not mean either of them is acting in other than good faith or other than honestly. All I can tell you, Senator Sterle—since my first knowledge of these matters was in 2016 and they relate to events that occurred in April 2015—is that the only documents I have seen, the exchange of correspondence between Dr Nahan and Mr Hockey, do not either constitute or evidence an agreement.