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. I refer to the Attorney-General's statement to the Senate earlier today, in which he said, in part:

… one of the options I considered … was that the ATO should not intervene in the proceedings.

Did the Attorney-General discuss his view with anyone other than Mr Mills and Ms O'Dwyer? If so, who? Did the Attorney-General provide to the Solicitor-General, the Australian Government Solicitor or the ATO any instructions consistent with this view?

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

I have addressed this matter in what Senator Wong herself acknowledged to be a very lengthy and detailed statement which I gave the Senate a short while ago. I have nothing to add to that statement.

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

Senator Wong, a supplementary question.

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

I again refer the Attorney-General to his statement, in which the question I ask is not addressed. I further quote from the statement:

I was also of the view, at that stage, that it was not necessary for the Commonwealth to intervene …

With whom did the Attorney-General discuss this view? Did he provide any instructions consistent with this view to the Solicitor-General or the AGS?

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

Once again, I have nothing to add to the lengthy and detailed statement I have just given.

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

A final supplementary question, Senator Wong.

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

I again note the Attorney-General's refusal to answer these questions on a matter which he did not address in his statement. On what basis did the Attorney-General form that view that, firstly, the ATO should not intervene, and, secondly, the Commonwealth should not intervene, given his obligations to both uphold the law and ensure that the interests of Australian taxpayers were protected?

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

I did explain that in the statement. In particular, I will try to turn it up for you, Senator. I was of the view.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order on my left.

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

I was initially of the view that the interests of the Commonwealth were represented before the High Court by the ATO, and the reason I formed that view, as I said in my statement, was that I was of the view that this was primarily a matter between the state of Western Australia and the ATO, because the main point in the case was the alleged inconsistency between the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act of the Commonwealth on the one hand and the Western Australian state act which we have been describing as the Bell act on the other hand. That was my view, but it was a view from which I was dissuaded by the Solicitor-General. (Time expired)