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. When and how did the Attorney-General first become aware of former Senator Day's request that his electorate office be established in a building in which he once had a clear proprietary interest?

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

Senator Ryan went through this in his very comprehensive statement earlier on in the day. The first time I became aware was when Senator Ryan raised the matter with me in early to mid-August. Senator Ryan says in his statement:

On 18 August, a further detailed discussion was held between myself and officials regarding the lease and specifically the possibility of an issue arising with section 44(v) of the Constitution. Following this conversation, I made contact with the Attorney-General later that morning.

So the answer to your question is: I first became aware the first time Senator Ryan mentioned the matter to me.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Supplementary question, Senator Wong?

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

Can the Attorney-General confirm when and how he first became aware of concerns that the government's agreement to Senator Day's request may have breached section 44(v) of the Constitution?

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

Yes, and that is what I have just done.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, final supplementary question.

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

Given the Attorney-General considers himself to be a well-respected and eminently qualified Queen's counsel, I assumed he recognised as at early August that there was a potential breach of section—

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

Do you have a question?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my right. Senator Wong, you have the call.

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

I assume he recognised, as at—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides!

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

I assume the Attorney therefore recognised, as at—

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

This is not a question; this is a statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Macdonald.

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

It is question time, not time to make a statement so your union buddies can see how clever you are. Senator Wong continually breaches this, as do members of the Greens. We have to get back to the situation where question time is about questions, not about gratuitous political statements.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I advise senators on both sides: interjecting during someone asking a question is equally as bad as interjecting when someone is answering a question. Senator Wong, you have the call.

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

I appear to have run out of time, Mr President.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not set the clock. Senator Wong, you can ask your question.

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

Thank you. I assume the Attorney recognised a potential breach of section 44(v), as at early August, and acted accordingly.

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

I do not know that there was a question, but I am happy to address the issue on the assumption that there was an intention to ask a question. As Senator Ryan said, he raised the matter with me on 18 August, and he raised the possibility of a section 44 issue. Senator Ryan says in his statement: 'I explained the situation and the facts. Senator Brandis asked for further information to allow him to form a preliminary view.' Moving to the next part of the statement that refers to me, Senator Ryan says on the 23 August: 'I met with the Attorney-General regarding the matter. He recommended that advice be sought from the Australian Government Solicitor.'

On 24 August the Attorney-General's office advised that more information was required and that I should write to Senator Day requesting this. On 26 August, Senator Ryan says: 'I wrote to Senator Day, and on 29 August he responded. On the same day I received it, the response from Senator Day was forwarded to the Attorney-General's office—' (Time expired)