Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Attorney-General, my fellow Queenslander Senator Watt. Does the Attorney-General agree that the Commonwealth should act as a model litigant in all legal matters it engages in?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, of course the Attorney-General considers that the government should act as a model litigant in each matter that it's involved in, and, as far as I'm aware, that's exactly how the Commonwealth acts, at least under the Albanese government. We do take those issues very seriously. It is important that the Commonwealth upholds that principle of being a model litigant, and I assure you that, particularly in the hands of an eminent barrister like Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, that is the principle that we uphold. I know that we haven't always had attorneys-general in this country who have Mr Dreyfus's standing, both as a lawyer and as a person of principle, but we're very fortunate, I think, at the moment to have an Attorney-General who conducts himself in an appropriate way. I think it's excellent that we have an Attorney-General who, if asked to cooperate with the police, would do so, unlike previous occupants of this role. I think it's also wonderful that as the Attorney-General we have a man, in Mr Dreyfus, with the utmost integrity who has not just promised to deliver a National Anti-Corruption Commission but actually done so—again, unlike former attorneys-general that we have seen in this parliament.

So yes. I suspect that we're leading to a particular matter, and I will be happy to answer Senator Scarr's question about that, but of course this government takes its responsibilities to act as a model litigant seriously. Whether we're talking about that in civil proceedings against the Commonwealth or whether we're talking about it in proceedings that the Commonwealth elects to join or intervene in, it is always important that the Commonwealth upholds its responsibilities to be a model litigant.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, first supplementary?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might note that the minister might do well to read judgements of the court before casting general slurs against previous occupants of the office. Minister, did the Commonwealth or its legal representatives always act as a model litigant during the mediation and settlement of the Ms Brittany Higgins claim against the Commonwealth?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or WATT (—) (): Well, I was wondering which case we were going to be talking about, and I actually thought that not only Senator Scarr but other coalition senators might have realised that, after the way last week turned out for them, they might wish to move on to other topics. But, unfortunately, we see the coalition intent on continuing its pursuit of Ms Higgins through the parliament. Unfortunately, we see the coalition intent on pursuing matters that have been the subject of court documents leaked to the media and matters that have been the subject of text messages leaked to the media. As I say, I really would have thought that, after last week and the way that turned out for the coalition, they might have learned the error of their ways. But, obviously, they are either so rigid in their questioning or so lacking in principle that they've decided to continue it.

As we said last week, Ms Higgins's claim was managed consistent with the Commonwealth's obligations under the Legal Services Directions 2017— (Time expired)

The:

Senator Scarr, second supplementary?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are in relation to a matter in the public domain. Minister, why didn't the Commonwealth or its legal representatives seek the views or evidence of the ministers or their officers whose actions were cited in the claim against the Commonwealth? How does that failure align with the Commonwealth's model litigant obligations?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr. As I said in the answer to the previous question, Ms Higgins's claim was managed consistent with the Commonwealth's obligations under the Legal Services Directions 2017. The terms of settlement and the claim were managed in accordance with legal principle and practice and informed by external legal advice, and the parties agreed that the terms of the settlement and the settlement process, including mediation, are confidential. I would have thought that the lawyers in the opposition might have understood the meaning of 'keeping details of settlement processes confidential', but it would appear that that is unfortunately not the case, through these ongoing questions.

Now, Senator Scarr comes back at me, saying that these are matters in the public domain. I wonder how they got into the public domain. I wonder how it is that confidential court documents that were held only by a very small number of people ended up in the public domain. Who had those court documents, I wonder? Who had the opportunity to provide them to the media? I wonder who on earth that would be and I wonder who on earth would think it is sound to keep asking these questions. (Time expired)