Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the interim report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the Bell litigation, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

  That the Senate take note of the report.

In doing so, the findings of our interim report should be of great concern to the chamber. We make findings that call on the Senate to take action, and I can outline why. We have been unable to table a substantive report according to the time line, and that is because Senator Brandis, as he has shown in this chamber time and time again, has not only refused to answer the questions put to him, but also, more to the point, he has obfuscated and refused to allow public servants to also answer questions.

What we know about the issue is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Australian Taxation Office. It is clear that the Commonwealth is entitled to significant funds from the Bell liquidation—in the order of at least several hundred million dollars. In taking the committee evidence, we have sought to work through and to understand the extent to which the Commonwealth was involved in conversations to subvert the money that the ATO has a right to by supporting a deal with the previous state government in Western Australia to subvert the order of funds by passing legislation through their parliament. We know there have been allegations that the Attorney-General was involved in the potential issuing of a direction to prevent the Commonwealth from intervening, so therefore taking the side of the state government, and putting at risk those funds that the ATO should have a right to.

We have put many questions to Senator Brandis and to government officials, of which a vastly overwhelming number have not been answered. I can highlight for the Senate today some of the exchanges that took place between Senator Brandis and me. For example:

CHAIR: There were some 30 questions taken on notice that the department did not answer on 17 February, so the committee is asking if you can provide the answers from the department or, alternatively … specify the harm to the public interest that would arise from answering the questions.

The due date for answering those questions was some time ago. Senator Brandis told the committee hearing:

… I am sure that can be done.

He said:

… I will ensure that the questions are answered, and those answers, of course, may include any appropriate claims of immunity.

That is from the committee Hansard from our hearing on 8 March. There were many similar exchanges in the committee. What happened is that the deadline passed for the submission of questions on notice and no answers were forthcoming. This has put the committee in a very difficult position in terms of its accountability to this chamber in meeting the demands of our terms of reference to ascertain the facts in relation to the Bell matter.

If Senator Brandis has nothing to hide, then it should be a simple process for him to answer those questions. I am quite certain that the department prepared answers to our questions and provided them to him to examine. He could have considered which of those he would like to mount a public interest immunity claim for. Senator Brandis set about simply claiming legal professional privilege, as did the department. Legal professional privilege is not an accepted public interest immunity ground in and of itself. The specific harm that comes from the disclosure of information must be specified in making a public interest immunity claim. Not only has the committee received no answers but it has also received no justification that would demonstrate any reason to not have provided those answers.

We have been put in a very difficult position. We have put forward recommendations to the Senate that call on this chamber to:

… reaffirm its commitment to the principles of ministerial responsibility and accountability regarding the answering of questions and provision information to the Senate and it's committees in accordance with the standing orders and other orders of continuing effect, and notes that all senators, including ministers, are responsible and accountable to the Senate.

We are asking:

… the Senate to insist that the Attorney-General respond to the committee's questions, noting the failure of the Attorney-General and officers of the Attorney-General's Department to provide responses to many of the questions that would enable clear facts to be established regarding—

this matter. That is the plea that the committee makes.

I know from briefly examining the dissenting report of the government that they have attacked the processes of the committee and the lack of time they have had to consider these issues. I know Senator Macdonald will stand up and debate these things, but because I cannot rebut him I will pre-empt some of what he has to say—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you sit down I will. It is just typical of this whole inquiry.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We went out of our way at the commencement of this inquiry to find times that would suit Senator Macdonald's diary and those of other coalition senators so that they would be across the evidence. The simple fact is that after many, many attempts at forming meetings—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just not true.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can certainly give you the documentation from the committee secretariat about those attempts. We started working as a committee by absolute majority, but also with the inclusion of non-members of the committee who come from the crossbench. We have had active participation from the Greens and from Senator Hinch regarding this matter. Senator Macdonald attacks the evidence and what is in the report. If you had attended our hearings and listened to the evidence, you would be well across being able to deal with the issues raised in this report—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are deliberately stopping me from having any say.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you have deliberately gone out of your way to not participate in our inquiry.

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

Senator Macdonald, Senator Pratt shall be heard in silence.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an extensive table within this report that outlines almost all of the questions that public servants and, indeed, Senator Brandis failed to answer. There was just a systematic referral of public servants to the minister. I understand that is allowed for under our standing orders. But if they wish to leave the minister an option of making a public interest immunity claim then public servants, in answering questions, are free to do that. However, the committee has a right to answers to those questions, and Senator Brandis has withheld those public servants from answering questions from our committee at the same time—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just a lie!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order. I ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw that comment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw because this will take up any time I might have had to comment. This is typical of the Labor Party.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The simple fact is that the standing orders of this place require that people answer questions or that a substantive claim of public interest immunity be made.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true and you know it.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are the standing orders of this place, and the committee seeks the support of the Senate in gaining answers to our inquiry. We have sought an extension for this inquiry. We have only done so after the minister's failure to answer the questions put to him and to government officials.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is typical of this whole inquiry that this debate finishes in one minute. The Labor Party have taken all the time so that I will be prevented from saying anything. That is typical of the way this committee is run. The hearings of the committee are set down when the chair knows that the two government senators are not available. How does she know that? Because she has been told it and because she is aware of other meetings for other committees that have been scheduled for exactly the same time.

Today this interim report, which is usually a one-pager seeking an extension, was dropped on government members . It is 36 pages, and we were told there was a meeting in 75 minutes to consider this report. You could not even read the report in the time that this chairman and this stacked committee allowed for senators to read the chair's report and make a considered decision on it. This is a farcical inquiry, this is a farcical report, and the whole process of this committee is an absolute farce and an embarrassment to the Senate. It brings the whole Senate committee process into disrepute. There has not been a shred of evidence to support anything in this report. The Attorney-General has been found to be blameless.

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

Order! It being 7.20, the time for debate has expired.