Mr President, my question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Attorney-General who yesterday, in relation to the High Court hearing on 8 February this year, said: 'The council who appeared in the matter in the High Court on behalf of the only relevant party, Mr Gleeson, was, as I understand the matter, at that time acting on instructions of the Australian Taxation Office not on my instructions.' Given Mr Gleeson did not appear, the ATO was not represented and Mr Watson sought leave to appear at the hearing on 8 February on behalf of the Commonwealth and not the Australian Tax Office, can the Attorney-General confirm his answer was incorrect?

I will check the transcript of the hearing.

Senator Dastyari, a supplementary question.

I refer to Mr Watson who, on 8 February, told the High Court that he appeared for the Commonwealth, and I quote: 'The Commonwealth attorney has not yet made the decision to intervene.' Can the Attorney-General confirm that on 8 February, when Mr Watson appeared on the Commonwealth's behalf, the Attorney-General was already aware of the matter and was considering whether the Commonwealth should intervene?

I cannot confirm that, Senator Dastyari, as a matter of fact. The proceedings in the High Court on 8 February were a directions hearing. I believe they were—but I will check this—a first directions hearing. One of the directions that was given in the court on that day was that the Commonwealth of Australia and I as the person representing the Commonwealth of Australia should decide by 30 March whether the Commonwealth would intervene. I did decide that the Commonwealth would intervene on or before 30 March.

Senator Dastyari, a final supplementary question.

What was the cause of the more than seven-week delay between the hearing and the Attorney-General's decision to finally intervene on 30 March?

Senator Dastyari, you say there was a delay. That was the time limited by the court for the Commonwealth to decide.