Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Did the Attorney-General prevent, discourage or inhibit attempts to challenge the Western Australian government's Bell Resources legislation, which would have favoured that state over federal taxpayers to the tune of $300 million?

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

There are so many false premises in that short question, Senator Watt. Might I remind you that what we are talking about is a piece of state legislation that was supported not only by the Liberal-National Party government of Western Australia but by the Labor opposition and even by the Greens, because what the Western Australian state government, with the support of the opposition, wanted to do was to bring a winding-up that had already been going on for 25 years and had already cost more than $200 million in professional costs that the creditors would never see to an end. That was what it was about. In any event—

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

A point of order, Senator Wong?

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 relevance. The senator was not asked about the history of the Bell litigation. The senator was asked a single question: did the Attorney-General prevent, discourage or inhibit attempts to challenge the WA government's Bell legislation? Can he just answer that question?

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

I did hear the Attorney-General, Senator Wong, in relation to the point of order, indicate up-front that there were so many premises in the question that he did not agree with.

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

What's the premise?

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

Senator Wong, I can only go on the answer I am given, and that is what the Attorney-General said up-front.

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

It would be useful to know what the premises are, if he does not agree.

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

It is up to the Attorney-General to explain that. The Attorney-General was answering the question. Attorney-General, you have the call.

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

So, Senator Watt, that is what this was about. Nevertheless, backed by litigation funders who had no interest whatsoever in bringing these proceedings to an early conclusion, that bipartisan legislation was challenged in the High Court by initiating proceedings filed on 27 November 2015. I did not do anything to interfere with those proceedings, because I did not know about them.

Senator Wong interjecting—

And, Senator Wong, you asked me in your question before about a section 78—you asked me before when the Commonwealth first became aware of the matter.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, if you care to listen to the answer rather than constantly interject, we now know, because it has been checked, that the 78B notices, which in the ordinary course of events would be the first notice the Commonwealth had of a matter of raising a constitutional issue, were filed on 1 December 2015.

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

Senator Watt with a supplementary question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the Attorney-General's refusal to answer my question, I again ask: did the Attorney-General prevent, discourage or inhibit attempts to challenge the Western Australian government's Bell Resources legislation, which would have favoured that state over federal taxpayers to the tune of $300 million?

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

Senator Watt, I thought you used to be a lawyer. These proceedings were not initiated by the Commonwealth. They were initiated by a litigation funder, a particular—

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

Senator Watt, a point of order?

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Order on both sides! Senator Wong and Senator Macdonald!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know the Attorney likes to rephrase questions to suit himself, but at no point in my question did it suggest that the Commonwealth had challenged this legislation. My question was whether the Attorney-General prevented, discouraged or inhibited attempts by anyone to challenge the Western Australian government's legislation.

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

Thank you, Senator Watt. You repeated your primary question, as you acknowledged when you said—

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

He is allowed to do that.

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

Of course he is allowed to do that. I am not saying he is not. The primary question, and the question you have just asked, was answered by the Attorney-General when he quoted in the primary question that he did not prevent because he had no knowledge. So I think he has answered that question but I will give the call to the Attorney-General.

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

So—through you, Mr President—Senator Watt, the Commonwealth of Australia—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Macdonald and Senator Wong!

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

The Commonwealth of Australia was not even a party to these proceedings until it intervened on 30 March 2016. These proceedings were conducted in the name of Bell Group creditor companies, funded by litigation funders, with which the Commonwealth of Australia had no involvement whatsoever and of which it had no knowledge whatsoever. Why would the Commonwealth of Australia have knowledge of litigation, initiated by private parties, to which it was not joined?

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

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Given the Attorney-General's answers, what led the Western Australian government to believe that the federal government would not challenge, or intervene in, a case concerning the Bell legislation?

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

Well, Senator Watt, that is a question you would have to ask the relevant members of the Western Australian government. But, as I said in my statement yesterday and in answer to previous questions, my first involvement in this matter personally was on 3 March 2016. The only document that evidences any dealings between the Western Australian government and the Commonwealth, the exchange of letters between Mr Hockey and Dr Nahan, was in April 2015, 11 months earlier and more than six months before the action was even commenced. Of those matters I had no knowledge or involvement whatsoever.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.