Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Listen!—between Attorney-General Brandis and Western Australian ministers for some gain. Well, let me go to the correspondence, which all of us have. I go to the letter of 15 April 2015 in which Treasurer Nahan wrote to federal Treasurer Hockey, speaking about proposed legislation to be brought to the Western Australian parliament to try to bring this event to a conclusion. Those in the gallery would be amazed to learn that the legislation had the full support of the Labor opposition in Western Australia and the Greens. You would think this is some Liberal stitch-up.

I will quote a couple of words from Nahan, who said that litigation between the creditors about distribution was 'in full flight' in both Australia and England and was likely to run for another five to 10 years, out to 2026. And now we have the circumstance in which Nahan says to Hockey that the Western Australian government is planning to introduce legislation that will—and here is dot point 1:

deliver a more rapid financial return to the Commonwealth, the State Government and other creditors;

Who is first in that list? The Commonwealth. What is this nonsense about trying to stitch up a deal to avoid $300 million of tax revenue to the Australian taxpayer after the Labor government in 1987 accepted money from their mates to avoid tax? The second purpose is to eliminate further speculation by professional litigation funders—the very ones who were going to extend this and extend it and extend it, until there was nothing left. And thirdly:

ensure no 'misdistribution' due to group complexity or leverage through litigation or a scheme;

And:

only apply to Bell companies that are registered in WA;

Where is the problem with that? Nahan says to the federal Treasurer, 'We want to bring this to a conclusion with the support of our Labor and Greens colleagues and the first creditor to be dealt with is the federal government.' And Hockey writes back to him and says, amongst other things, 'I trust the Western Australian government will therefore continue to engage in good faith in the forthcoming mediation process'.

In the few seconds I have left to me, I will say that the advice I have learnt over time is that I never try to pick a Queen's Counsel lawyer, because they are good. And what I have seen evidenced in the last few days in this place is that Senator Brandis is good all right; he is a jolly sight better than anyone who has tried to come up against him. There is nothing to see here, except— (Time expired)