Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (09:35): If there appears to be a misunderstanding about this, I can ask a series of questions in accordance with the resolution, if that is allowed by the resolution that the Senate passed. The PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General would like to know the question. The Attorney-General is entitled to have the question. Would you like to repeat the question, Senator Pratt? Senator PRATT: I have some questions before me. The Attorney-General has specifically refused to allow answers as to whether his office prepared a direction under the Judiciary Act, which would have prevented the Australian tax office from intervening in the Bell matter. Will the Attorney-General give us that answer now? The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong. Senator Wong: I just have a point of clarification, given we seem to have such difficulty in getting cooperation on this matter. Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator Wong: If I may, I just want to be clear that the motion that has been agreed by the Senate will enable a question to be asked and an answer to be given, and then another question to be asked and another answer to be given. Because, if not—I do not want a point of order taken subsequently. I would like the senator to have the opportunity to put all of her questions, at this stage, on the record so that we do not have another jig to avoid having to answer. The PRESIDENT: Thank you. If I could maybe assist: the motion is that a senator may ask for an explanation in relation to all matters in relation to the subject material. I will take it that that question has been asked of the Attorney-General. At the conclusion of the Attorney-General's response, a motion may be moved to take note of that answer. Senator Wong: With respect, President, I do not believe that that is the most efficient way to deal with this. I would request that we should have a set of questions put on the record—if you would prefer to deal with them as a block as opposed to in sequence. The PRESIDENT: If the Senate is happy for a series of questions to be asked by Senator Pratt. Senator Brandis: I have no objection. Senator Wong: The Leader of the Government in the Senate is saying he has no objection to a series of questions being asked. Do you want them asked all at once or are you happy to have question and answer? Senator Brandis: All I want to do is comply with the requirement in paragraph (4) of the Senate's resolution. That requires me to be present here: … so that a senator may ask the Attorney-General for an explanation in connection with his actions on this matter— and so on. If Senator Pratt or any other senator wants to ask me a question then I am here to answer it. I do not have any particular objection as to whether it might be a more efficient of dealing with the matter for the questions all to be put so that they can be answered at once. I am merely seeking to comply with the terms of the Senate's resolution and the suggestion otherwise that I am seeking not to do is unfair and false. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, on the same matter? Senator McKim: Yes, I would just seek clarification from you, President, and potentially a ruling whether other senators are able to also ask Senator Brandis questions or is it just a single senator? The PRESIDENT: I will read the wording of the resolution. The key point is on page 18 of the today's Notice Paperat paragraph (4), and a portion of it states: …so that a senator— so I take that to be singular— may ask the Attorney-General for an explanation in connection with his actions on this matter … So, really, Senator Pratt, I think what we should entertain is you asking the Attorney-General for an explanation of this matter and then the Attorney-General shall respond, and then a senator may move a motion to take note of that response. Senator Hinch, on the same matter? Senator Hinch: With regard to the 'a senator', other members of that committee want to ask the Attorney-General questions as well. So there is 'a senator' Senator Pratt and 'a senator' Senator McKim and 'a senator' Senator Hinch. The PRESIDENT: No, it is not in those terms. I will take a question from a senator, otherwise we could have 75 other questions. Senator Pratt, you are seeking an explanation. If you would like to make your question as comprehensive as you wish, but I will entertain the one question, and make it as comprehensive as you wish. Senator Wong. Senator Wong: Given that and given the crossbench's desire to ask questions, I would indicate that the opposition would give leave, should the rest of the Senate do so, for Senator Hinch or other crossbench members to also put a question to the Attorney-General. The PRESIDENT: That is up to the Senate if that occurs at a later junction. Senator Pratt, would you like to ask your question now seeking that explanation? Senator PRATT: I seek an explanation from the Attorney-General on the following matters. The Attorney-General has specifically refused to allow answers as to whether his office prepared a direction under the Judiciary Act, which would have prevented the Australian tax office from intervening in the Bell matter. Will the Attorney-General give us that answer now? Secondly, does the Attorney-General believe that he is above the rules of the Senate which specify legal privilege is not on its own a basis for refusing to answer questions in a Senate committee? Why has the Attorney-General not complied with the Senate's request to provide a legitimate basis for a public interest immunity claim? I note that in his response to the Senate tabled on 23 March, the Attorney-General stated: Thus, whether or not the Senate has accepted that matters pertaining to confidential legal advice to government are always and in all circumstances immune from disclosure is neither here nor there. The fact is that, in general, such matters are not disclosed. Can the Attorney-General explain to the Senate why he believes that what the Senate accepts or asks for is 'neither here nor there'? The report tabled yesterday by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee required that the Attorney-General provide to the committee a statement of the grounds for concluding that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information specifying the harm to the public interest that would result from the disclosure of the information of the documents. Will the Attorney-General comply with the committee's requirement? On what basis does the Attorney-General believe that there would be a harm to the administration of justice, given that the litigation has now ended and there is no risk of compromising that litigation? The Attorney-General would be aware of evidence given before the committee on Monday, 27 March, that the Australian tax office was so worried that the Attorney-General was about to issue a direction that they sought legal advice and made the tax commissioner, Chris Jordan, aware of those plans. Why didn't the Attorney-General's office disabuse them of this notion if he had no such plans? Why did the Attorney-General say to Andrew Mills on 7 March that he was not going to issue a direction unprompted? That would suggest the Attorney-General was actually considering doing so. Will the Attorney-General now tell the truth? Was he planning to issue a direction to stop the tax office from intervening?