This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Penny Wong says Brandis has thrown Joe Hockey under a bus – politics live
Penny Wong says Brandis has thrown Joe Hockey under a bus – politics live
(35 minutes later)
2.21am GMT
02:21
Lunchtime politics
2.01am GMT
02:01
Updated
at 2.08am GMT
1.58am GMT
01:58
Greens senator Nick McKim says Brandis should resign or he should be sacked by Malcolm Turnbull if he instructed Gleeson not to run the strongest argument on the Bell matter.
Did they really think that states effectively inventing their own version of commonwealth tax laws wouldn’t be an issue for the high court? Of course it was going to be an issue for the high court. As it turned out, it was an issue for the high court. It was a 7-0 decision by which the high court struck down the Bell act. That is as clear cut as you get: 7-0. It was the most extraordinary deal that occurred here between the commonwealth Liberal government and the state Liberal government.
Updated
at 2.09am GMT
1.51am GMT
01:51
Greens senator Nick McKim:
Let’s be very clear about what that allegation is. That allegation is that the attorney general instructed the then solicitor general, Mr Gleeson, to effectively run dead on the strongest argument he had at his disposal in the high court ... That statement that we have just heard from the attorney general did not rebut that allegation.
Updated
at 1.54am GMT
1.48am GMT
1.48am GMT
01:48
01:48
A-G Brandis says there is no evidence to suggest a deal was struck between Joe Hockey and the WA treasurer Dr Nehan. https://t.co/jgYnnxhw9v
A-G Brandis says there is no evidence to suggest a deal was struck between Joe Hockey and the WA treasurer Dr Nehan. https://t.co/jgYnnxhw9v
1.46am GMT
1.46am GMT
01:46
01:46
The key points of WA treasurer Nahan's letter, and Hockey's response tabled by Brandis today. pic.twitter.com/AO8i5KsDJ7
The key points of WA treasurer Nahan's letter, and Hockey's response tabled by Brandis today. pic.twitter.com/AO8i5KsDJ7
1.44am GMT
1.44am GMT
01:44
01:44
Wong: “Magically you woke up one morning and thought I will muzzle the Solicitor-General”
Wong: “Magically you woke up one morning and thought I will muzzle the solicitor general.”
Updated
at 1.51am GMT
1.40am GMT
1.40am GMT
01:40
01:40
Now the lower house is voting on the Labor suspension motion, which presumably will go down as well.
Now the lower house is voting on the Labor suspension motion, which presumably will go down as well.
1.38am GMT
1.38am GMT
01:38
01:38
Meanwhile Penny Wong is pointing out the fact that Brandis did not explain – if he agreed with Gleeson – why did he make the legal direction to force Gleeson to get approval for future advice.
Meanwhile Penny Wong is pointing out the fact that Brandis did not explain – if he agreed with Gleeson – why did he make the legal direction to force Gleeson to get approval for future advice.
Updated
Updated
at 1.47am GMT
at 1.47am GMT
1.36am GMT
1.36am GMT
01:36
01:36
In the lower house Labor is trying to suspend standing orders to debate George Brandis’s role.
In the lower house Labor is trying to suspend standing orders to debate George Brandis’s role.
The government gagged Tony Burke successfully.
The government gagged Tony Burke successfully.
Now the government is voting to gag Mark Dreyfus.
Now the government is voting to gag Mark Dreyfus.
Updated
Updated
at 1.37am GMT
at 1.37am GMT
1.33am GMT
1.33am GMT
01:33
01:33
Penny Wong describes the deal between the commonwealth and the WA government as a “political fix”.
Penny Wong describes the deal between the commonwealth and the WA government as a “political fix”.
What is a few hundred million dollars between friends anyway? It is very interesting that all of a sudden out of that appears the direction that requires Mr Justin Gleeson to get this bloke’s permission before he acts for people and provides advice. Where was that in the statement? Where was that? All of a sudden did it just come out of the ether? In relation to the GST, we don’t know yet what relevance the GST debate had to this political fix.
What is a few hundred million dollars between friends anyway? It is very interesting that all of a sudden out of that appears the direction that requires Mr Justin Gleeson to get this bloke’s permission before he acts for people and provides advice. Where was that in the statement? Where was that? All of a sudden did it just come out of the ether? In relation to the GST, we don’t know yet what relevance the GST debate had to this political fix.
1.29am GMT
01:29
Penny Wong says Brandis has thrown Joe Hockey, former treasurer and now US ambassador, under a bus.
It throws Joe Hockey under a bus. How convenient that you go after the bloke who can’t defend himself. How convenient that somehow the bloke who has left – “it was all him”, all of this constitutional advice and all of this kerfuffle, Senator Brandis was involved in, all the discussions with lawyers and the attorney general from WA – well actually it was all Joe’s fault. Very convenient. I suppose the first question is: are you going to recall him ...
Updated
at 1.40am GMT
1.26am GMT
01:26
Brandis goes to the political points.
He rejects it was a sweetheart deal on GST.
It has also been suggested by some commentators that there is some relationship between this matter and the question of WA’s share of the GST. Not so far as I am aware. However, as I have said, I have no knowledge of what passed between Mr Hockey and Dr Nahan other than what is revealed by the April 2015 exchange of letters, which lends no credence to that view.
Brandis also rejects that he failed to protect commonwealth interests.
Finally, it has been asserted absurdly by Mr Dreyfus and the opposition that I have somehow failed sufficiently to protect the interests of the commonwealth, but every decision I made in this matter did protect the interests of the commonwealth, by supporting the decision of the ATO to intervene in the matter and by deciding to accept Mr Gleeson’s advice that the commonwealth of Australia should also intervene in the matter.
Updated
at 1.41am GMT
1.23am GMT
01:23
Brandis:
Gleeson represented both the ATO and the commonwealth of Australia. In the week following the hearing, I had a meeting in Perth with Dr Nahan and Mr Mischin who expressed in strong terms their disappointment that I had given instructions for the commonwealth to intervene and that the ATO had intervened. The high court delivered its judgment on 16 May. It upheld the constitutional challenge to the validity of the Bell act on the basis of the revenue question.
Updated
at 1.42am GMT
1.21am GMT
01:21
But Gleeson “was strongly of the view that the commonwealth should intervene”.
I saw the force of what Mr Gleeson put to me and I accepted his advice. Accordingly, on 30 March, on my instructions, the commonwealth gave a notice of intervention in the proceedings. After the commonwealth’s notice of intervention was served, there were several conversations instigated by WA ministers in an attempt to resolve the matter.
Updated
at 1.42am GMT
1.19am GMT
01:19
Lots of discussions followed over the next few days, then Brandis says:
I arrived at the firm conclusion that it was desirable that the ATO should intervene to protect the interests of the commonwealth, not withstanding the views that had been expressed by Mr Mischin [WA’s attorney general] and Dr Nahan regarding Dr Nahan’s discussions with Mr Hockey and the related exchange of correspondence. I was also of the view at that stage that it was not necessary for the commonwealth to intervene in addition to the ATO.
Updated
at 1.21am GMT
1.14am GMT
01:14
Brandis said he first knew of the matter on 3 March this year when the social services minister, Christian Porter (former WA treasurer and attorney general), came to visit him.
Porter had a discussion with him.
Updated
at 1.18am GMT
1.12am GMT
01:12
There was a letter between Nahan and Hockey in April 2015.
Mr Hockey’s letter provides no basis for the claim that an agreement or understanding had been arrived at between the commonwealth and WA governments. Although it is clear that some ministers of the WA government had a different view.
Updated
at 1.17am GMT
1.10am GMT
01:10
Brandis says it was in the interests of the commonwealth to settle the matter.
It is relevant here to point out that I subsequently learned that there had been discussions between the former commonwealth treasurer, Mr Hockey, and the treasurer of WA, Dr Nahan, with a view to settling the commonwealth’s claim in the Bell winding up. Since the commonwealth’s proof of debt was for some $167m and a total post liquidation tax assessment of some $298m, it was plainly in the commonwealth’s interests that the matter be settled or otherwise expeditiously finalised.
He says neither he nor Kelly O’Dwyer were aware of the Hockey-Nahan discussion.
Updated
at 1.13am GMT
1.08am GMT
01:08
Brandis says:
The Bell Act came into force on 26 November 2015.
The following day some of the Bell Group creditors commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the high court, challenging its constitutional validity.
They did so primarily on the ground that insofar as the act dealt with debts due to the commonwealth in the form of taxation revenue, its provisions were inconsistent with the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Taxation Administration Act and should therefore be struck down ...
Updated
at 1.11am GMT
1.06am GMT
01:06
Brandis:
Those familiar with corporate insolvency and this is one of the fields in which I used to specialise when I was in practice, have seen enough examples of administrations in which, after all the costs have been incurred in litigation, there is literally not a cent left over for the creditors. In order to avoid that eventuality, in 2015, that is at a time when the matter had been going on for more than 20 years already, the parliament of WA passed a special act of parliament, the Bell Group Company’s Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds Act 2015 which I will refer to in these remarks as the Bell act.
He says one of the features of the Bell act was “a particular sequence for the prioritisation of creditors”.
The Commonwealth Corporations Act makes provision in an ordinary winding up for the priority in which proofs of debt are paid so that, for example, secured creditors rank above unsecured creditors.
