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

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General's confirmation yesterday that his office had been 'aware some months earlier' of Commissioner Heydon's intention to speak at a New South Wales Liberal Party event: the Sir Garfield Barwick lecture. Why did the Attorney-General's office take no action when they became aware Commissioner Heydon was addressing a Liberal Party function?

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

Let us remind ourselves what I said. I have got the Hansard with me, so I will remind you what I said. I said, when you asked me a like question, I became aware on Thursday morning. I instituted an inquiry. My office had become aware some months earlier and apologised on my behalf because I had already, at the time that my office received the date claimer notice, accepted another event which was in the diary. That is the position.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General did not answer, so I re-ask why his office took no action when they became aware Commissioner Heydon was addressing a Liberal Party function. Can the Attorney-General also explain to the Senate why yesterday he said he was 'concerned' about the commissioner delivering the Barwick lecture?

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

Senator Wong, can I give you some advice? If you are going to paraphrase, paraphrase accurately, because you have not done so. First of all, in relation to the first part of the question, I did not say my office became aware that the New South Wales Liberal Party was promoting the function. I said that my office had received a date claimer notice, and, contrary to what you have asserted, my office did take action—that is, they sent an apology on my behalf. In relation to the second part of your question, I was concerned because I had seen the press reports on Sky News that morning and I knew that Labor Party politicians were causing a political controversy about the matter.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General explain how it is possible for the commissioner to overlook multiple emails titled 'Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales division lawyers' branch,' or referring to former Prime Minister Howard, or referring to the Attorney-General, or referring to New South Wales state donation compliance?

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

Again, if you are going to put these propositions it is best to get your facts right. You use the word multiple. I suppose three is a multiple. Three emails in the space of 18 months—

Opposition senators: Four.

I have seen three. Three in the space of 18 months does not strike me as being a huge flurry of emails. Secondly, I might say that the only reference to the New South Wales Liberal Party professionals' branch in all bar one of those is in the subject line of the email. It is not for me to speculate upon what Mr Heydon—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a good place to hide it.

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

Senator Carr, you do not hide the subject line of an email. The infantilism of your interjection knows no bounds. In any event, Mr Heydon explained this matter to the royal commission yesterday, and I accept what he says.