Murray Watt Queensland, Australian Labor Party
2:08 pm
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. What instructions did the Attorney-General provide to the Solicitor-General, either directly or through his office or department, in relation to the intervention of the ATO or the Commonwealth in the Bell Group matter? Given that he has already provided the Senate with selected documents, will the Attorney-General provide the Senate with all correspondence between his office, his department and the Solicitor-General's office in relation to the Bell Group matter?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
First of all, in relation to the first part of your question, Senator Watt, I did not instruct the Solicitor-General on behalf of the ATO. The Solicitor-General's instructions on behalf of the ATO were from the ATO, delivered by the Australian Government Solicitor. As I said in my very lengthy and detailed statement, the ATO was the Solicitor-General's client in relation to his appearance on its behalf before the High Court.
In relation to the second part of your question, Senator Watt, I will take that on notice. Obviously there are documents that would reveal legal advice, and you would not expect them to be disclosed as they never are.
Murray Watt Queensland, Australian Labor Party
2:09 pm
At any point did the Attorney-General direct the Solicitor-General, either directly or through his office or department, not to intervene on behalf of either the ATO or the Commonwealth?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
2:10 pm
Senator Watt, you must not have been listening to my first answer. The Solicitor-General did not act on behalf of the ATO on my instructions. He acted on behalf of the ATO on the ATO's instructions. I have no involvement in instructing the Solicitor-General on behalf of the ATO.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
The point of order is on relevance. The Attorney-General is insisting on using the word 'instruction' in order to avoid the question. The question was, 'At any point did the Attorney-General direct the Solicitor-General, whether personally or through his office or department, not to intervene on behalf of either the ATO or the Commonwealth?' It did not say 'instruct'; it asked about a direction from him.
Stephen Parry President
The Attorney-General did make it very clear in his answer, Senator Wong, that there were no instructions or no involvement in relation to the Australian Taxation Office. The senator is aware of the question. I call the Attorney-General.
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
The point I am trying to convey to Senator Watt through you, Mr President, is that the ATO, not the Commonwealth of Australia, was Mr Gleeson's client.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Yes, again on relevance. We are not asking who the client was. We are well aware of that. We are asking what this minister directed. What directions did this minister give? He ought to answer that question.
Stephen Parry President
I am assuming from the Attorney-General's answer—it is difficult for me to arbitrate, but I am assuming—that he is answering the question and that he is relevant, because he is indicating that the client, the Australian Taxation Office, was not a client of the Commonwealth and so there would be no direction and no instruction. In any event, the minister is aware of the question.
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
Mr President, the point I am trying to explain through you to Senator Watt is that, because the ATO was Mr Gleeson's client in relation to its intervention in the Bell Group proceedings, I had no role in providing instructions on its behalf to the Solicitor-General. (Time expired)
Murray Watt Queensland, Australian Labor Party
2:12 pm
At any point did the Attorney-General direct the Solicitor-General, either directly or through his office or department, to limit—
Unidentified interjection - Hansard doesn't record who said this
Honourable Senators:
Honourable senators interjecting—
Stephen Parry President
Order! I have to listen to the question, so I need quiet on both sides. Senator Watt, would you like to commence your question again.
Murray Watt Queensland, Australian Labor Party
At any point did the Attorney-General direct the Solicitor-General, either directly or through his office or department, so as to limit the scope of arguments he was to put to the High Court in relation to the Bell Group matter?
George Brandis Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General
2:13 pm
Once again, I have dealt with these matters very extensively in a very lengthy and detailed statement. In that statement, one of the points I made was that in discussing these matters I did not waive the Commonwealth's privilege in relation to legal advice. As Senator Watt knows very well, governments of both political persuasions have always respected the confidentiality of legal advice. For that reason, I do not propose to respond to any question that seeks information as to legal advice provided to the Commonwealth.