Senator BACK (Western Australia) (16:28): Senator Gallagher is almost right when she talks about the government's willingness to enter into an arrangement to forgo millions of dollars in tax revenue in order to benefit political mates—but you are out by 29 years, Senator Gallagher, as I will explain in a few moments. The genesis of the background of this scenario goes back to 1987 and beyond, to the then stock market crash during the time of Mr Brian Burke as the Premier of Western Australia. It was a time when Burke and his mates—Bond, Connell, Holmes a Court and others—ran Western Australia like their own personal fiefdom. We then go to 1988, when Mr Robert Holmes a Court owned the Bell Group. Do you know what the Bell Group was? It was largely involved in heavy transport—a big cash cow. Holmes a Court owns the Bell Group, but of course as a result of the 1987 stock market crash he has gone bad. To whom does he turn? He turns to his mate Burke, now managing probably the most rotten government ever—a Labor government—since this state was developed. I know Senator Sterle will not agree with me. What happened? The deal was done. On behalf of the Western Australian community and Bond, the Bond Group bought the assets of the Bell Group. Then, of course, as we know, by 1991 she goes to the wall, and of course it goes into liquidation. Who then was asked to pick up the cost of this whole exercise? None other than the Western Australian community, through a levy on third-party vehicle insurance. Senator Sterle assured me earlier that this was history; it had all finished. It has not finished. It is ongoing to this very day. Let me explain to Senator Gallagher why it is that she is quite right—that there was a willingness on the part of a government to enter into an arrangement to forego millions of dollars in tax revenue. By 1992-93, the Premier of the state was Ms Carmen Lawrence. Her brother, Bevan Lawrence, made the point publicly that his estimate at that time, in 1990, was that the efforts of the Burke government—the corruption and the rot that was the Burke Labor government—had cost the taxpayers of Western Australia some $600 million. In today's dollars that is $1.2 billion. That was the brother of the Premier of the state who said we had to have a royal commission into the rot that was the Western Australian Burke—followed by Dowding, followed by Lawrence—Labor government. Senator Gallagher could not have known how right she was, because in 1987, in evidence to the royal commission that became known as the WA Inc. royal commission, forced upon Premier Lawrence partially by her own brother but also by academics and even, by then, journalists in Western Australia— Senator Smith: Western Australians marching in the streets. Senator BACK: Absolutely! Senator Smith is right: people by then were marching in the street. The corruption was there for all to see. Mr Connell alleged, under oath, in evidence to the royal commission, that Hawke—being then Labor Prime Minister Hawke—dropped a proposed gold tax after Connell and various Perth high-flyers each donated $250,000 to Labor during an infamous lunch in Brian Burke's office. Senator Gallagher is right: there was an attempt by Labor mates to avoid tax. It was to do with lifting, or not imposing, a tax on gold. There is no question at all here, Mr Acting Deputy President—and, through you, to the gallery—that in the issue that has come before us today Senator Gallagher would have been far wiser to learn the lessons of history to make sure that she did not make a fool of herself. So here was Connell, in evidence, damning himself and others for the fact that they all got their chequebooks out and gave a quarter of a million dollars to the Labor Party so that then Prime Minister Hawke would not charge a proposed gold tax, which of course would have been revenue for the people of Australia. That was the saddest part of the whole sad litany of Western Australia during that era. I was asked this morning, because of my interjections at question time, why I had such a keen interest in it. Well, I was in business in Western Australia at that time, and I thought I was the frontrunner for an engineering project for which I had introduced the technology into Western Australia. It was original and it was unique. I engaged the services of experts from the eastern states. I influenced the then minister simply by saying to him, 'Please consider this new, unused, untested technology.' Of course, he then went and got his own consultant engineers in his department to go and check and, indeed, the technology that I had suggested was to become the technology that was used on that project. We went to tender, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I will tell you what I was told behind the scenes. I was told that if I did not use a certain firm of engineers, a certain firm of consultants, a certain firm of electricians, and plumbers, and carpenters, and transport organisations—and, by the way, if there was not going to be a brown paper bag with money in it—I was unlikely to win that tender, despite having been the person who introduced that technology into Western Australia. We went ahead with our tender and—do you know what?—I was not going to be party to that; I was not going to be party to the corruption and the rot that had become the state Labor government in Western Australia. History records that my company did not win that tender. Another party, which presumably was willing to go down the path of these others, won it. Of course, the wrong technology was put into place and it subsequently failed. So when I speak with some passion about my memory and my recollection, it is not just the $50 per vehicle per annum that we have all had to pay for donkey's years to repay the debt incurred in those circumstances; it is my own personal memory of those times. The question now becomes: who funded the litigation? The litigation by the liquidator was against the Commonwealth Bank, against Westpac, against NAB—against a consortium of some 20 banks. But who funded that litigation? Did the Commonwealth government fund the litigation? No. The Commonwealth government did not put in a penny. Did other creditors put any money in? No. It fell to the Western Australian community. That court case started in the 1990s. It eventually was dealt with by Justice Owen, over 404 sitting days in 2002-03, and history records that, indeed, he found in favour of the liquidator and the Western Australian insurance commission. That litigation, at the expense solely of Western Australian taxpayers, went on and on. That brings us to the point raised by Senator Gallagher today, which is the possible involvement of the now Western Australian Liberal-led government and the coalition government here in Canberra. Those of us who know anything about litigation know that in most cases it is a lawyer-led recovery. They will keep going until there is no money left. And that is the situation that was facing the Western Australian government in 2015. If anybody has been listening to this debate, they would have thought that somehow there was a backyard deal being done— Senator McKim: There was. Senator BACK: Listen!—between Attorney-General Brandis and Western Australian ministers for some gain. Well, let me go to the correspondence, which all of us have. I go to the letter of 15 April 2015 in which Treasurer Nahan wrote to federal Treasurer Hockey, speaking about proposed legislation to be brought to the Western Australian parliament to try to bring this event to a conclusion. Those in the gallery would be amazed to learn that the legislation had the full support of the Labor opposition in Western Australia and the Greens. You would think this is some Liberal stitch-up. I will quote a couple of words from Nahan, who said that litigation between the creditors about distribution was 'in full flight' in both Australia and England and was likely to run for another five to 10 years, out to 2026. And now we have the circumstance in which Nahan says to Hockey that the Western Australian government is planning to introduce legislation that will—and here is dot point 1: deliver a more rapid financial return to the Commonwealth, the State Government and other creditors; Who is first in that list? The Commonwealth. What is this nonsense about trying to stitch up a deal to avoid $300 million of tax revenue to the Australian taxpayer after the Labor government in 1987 accepted money from their mates to avoid tax? The second purpose is to eliminate further speculation by professional litigation funders—the very ones who were going to extend this and extend it and extend it, until there was nothing left. And thirdly: ensure no 'misdistribution' due to group complexity or leverage through litigation or a scheme; And: only apply to Bell companies that are registered in WA; Where is the problem with that? Nahan says to the federal Treasurer, 'We want to bring this to a conclusion with the support of our Labor and Greens colleagues and the first creditor to be dealt with is the federal government.' And Hockey writes back to him and says, amongst other things, 'I trust the Western Australian government will therefore continue to engage in good faith in the forthcoming mediation process'. In the few seconds I have left to me, I will say that the advice I have learnt over time is that I never try to pick a Queen's Counsel lawyer, because they are good. And what I have seen evidenced in the last few days in this place is that Senator Brandis is good all right; he is a jolly sight better than anyone who has tried to come up against him. There is nothing to see here, except— (Time expired)