Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I, too, rise to take note of the minister's response to the resolution passed in this place that documents be produced and the claim of public interest immunity. It is very disappointing to see Senator Watt come into this place and attempt to defend the indefensible. There is a very, very serious question which the Attorney needs to respond to, and that is, to put it very, very precisely: what happened in meeting room 3 on 25 November 2022 when the Attorney and his chief of staff met with then president of the AAT, her Honour Justice Meagher? What happened in that meeting room? That is a legitimate question that all senators have a right to ask the Attorney with the reasonable expectation that he will engage with the question. There are extraordinary issues arising from this matter. Quite often Senator Shoebridge and I are on the same page in matters of process, governance and in the importance of our institutions, including this place, the institution of the Senate. Quite often we are on the same page. I absolutely agree with many of the comments he has made in this respect, including the public interest in knowing what happened in that meeting between the Attorney and the then president of the AAT, who was a member of the Federal Court. This has nothing to do with past matters involving past High Court judges and past senators, absolutely nothing. It has direct relevance in terms of what happened in that meeting on that day.

I refer to some of the testimony we received before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in estimates in May 2023. In fact, there were two meetings on 25 November 2022 in the Attorney-General's office in Sydney or in the Commonwealth meeting offices in Sydney, Meeting Room 3. The first was attended by Her Honour Justice Meagher with the Attorney and his chief of staff between 10:15 and 10:45 on that day. The second was attended by the Attorney, his chief of staff, with the registrar of the AAT, Mr Hawkins, half an hour later. This is something extraordinary which Mr Hawkins, the registrar, brought to the attention of the committee during the course of estimates, after he was asked questions in relation to what happened in the meeting he had with the Attorney and the Attorney's chief of staff. This is what he said in answer to a question from Senator Cash, who asked, 'Can I ask what the meeting was about?' Registrar Hawkins responded, 'I would like to tell you that the Attorney prefaced the meeting by saying it was cabinet in confidence and confidential, and that I wasn't authorised to speak about it with anyone, so could I take that on notice?' Senator Cash then asked, 'It was cabinet in confidence and confidential? Have you ever been told that before in relation to any meetings that you had?' Mr Hawkins: 'No, it was certainly the first time I've been told that and that's why I'm particularly reluctant to discuss it.' Senator Cash: 'I accept your reluctance. Are you a member of cabinet, Registrar?' Mr Hawkins: 'No I'm not.' How can the discussions held between the Attorney, his chief of staff and the registrar of the AAT be cabinet in confidence? It's absolutely extraordinary.

I went and had a look at the cabinet handbook. Who is the secretary of the cabinet? It is the Attorney-General, who claimed cabinet in confidence in relation to a discussion with the office holder of the AAT. Does it have any comment at all in relation to cabinet-in-confidence discussions with people totally external from the cabinet? No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It's absolute nonsense. Yet we have no explanation whatsoever from the minister's response today as to how a discussion between the Attorney, with their own chief of staff and the registrar of the AAT could be cabinet in confidence. This is extraordinary. There are serious, serious questions to be asked about what happened on that day, 25 November 2022, and the Attorney should carefully reflect on how he responds to the questions raised in this chamber.