Thank You Mr President. I move to take note of the answer.

Well that was a very, lengthy and detailed statement and one does wonder why it took a front page of the West Australian before the Attorney-General and the Government fronted up on this. Why is it that it took a front page of the papers before this Attorney-General came into this chamber and told the truth about what happened in relation to the Bell litigation?

Let's recall this is not the first time this matter has been raised in this parliament. There have been questions in this Senate, there were questions before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee about these matters and yet it took this Attorney-General to come into here, took him over a weekend and the front page of the papers and frankly, a lot of media concern about what has occurred. I would also make the point that the Attorney-General declined to comment over this weekend in response to the allegations until today, telling everybody "We don't comment on matters to which the Commonwealth is a party". Well, he has certainly commented at length today and I wish a few more of his colleagues were in here to listen to his statement, commenting at length on the litigation today.

What I would say is this - the one thing you can say about that statement is it throws Joe Hockey under a bus doesnt it? 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, 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 Western Australia - well actually it was all Joe's fault. Very convenient.

I suppose the first question is are you going to recall him from our most important ally, he is the ambassador to the United States, our most important ally, our most important security and defence relationship? If you don't have confidence in him because he did a dirty deal, are you going to recall him? We wait to hear because how convenient. I will take that interjection from Senator Cormann, and he says "We haven't got much to say". Don't worry, we will go through this statement carefully and compare it with what has been said in the Western Australian Parliament. As always with Senator Brandis, you have to look at what he doesn't say. You have to look at all the careful things he says and doesn't say because there are a couple of things he didn't tell us about.

One of them was why did he put in place the direction to the Solicitor-General? Because if you look at the sequence of events and I am sure any colleagues may go to this, if you look at the sequence of events, it is interesting how we have this dispute between ministers that appears, this discussion about how you put in place this fix, this political fix for a few hundred million dollars. 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. I will take the interjection from Senator Brandis, he says "There is no evidence of that". Don't you love it, he is always a lawyer. You could answer the allegation couldn't you? What others I think are very clear of is that this - the issue of the GST payments to Western Australia - was a political issue for the Government. We know that. We know that from questions in here. I will take the interjection from Senator Cormann. He said "We dealt with it. How did you deal with it? Was this part of the deal?

Let's remember, the infrastructure - let's remember what Mr Nahan, the - I'm not sure how one says it... Thank you for correcting me again Senator Brandis. I am always pleased to be corrected by you. Dr Nahan I am told. Dr Nahan said "The understanding was that the Commonwealth would not use the powers under the Corporations Act with the regulations null and void and it would not take an action to the High Court on the ATO and tax issues. In the end the ATO and Commonwealth Solicitor-General joined the action and they were successful in throwing the issue out.

The question here which will be considered in detail in the coming weeks and days is the difference between what we have just had in the statement and what we know from the parliament of Western Australia. It is quite clear from what the Western Australian ministers have said, they had a very different understanding of this deal, a very different understanding of this deal. I think what Senator Brandis is asking the Senate to accept is somehow they were stupid. They got the wrong end of the stick. They are incompetent. That is essentially what he is asking us to believe. Somehow they got the wrong end of the stick. It wasn't actually ever something that they were going to agree with.

Let's understand, we have the Treasurer and the Attorney-General of the State proceeding on the basis that they had an agreement. They had an agreement. I want to make this point also - the Attorney-General says that he was happy for the Commonwealth to intervene. I am paraphrasing, We didn't have to intervene initially because the ATO was there and then I decided after Mr Gleeson set me straight that we did have to intervene.

Can I make this point? We are talking about the Constitution. We are talking about a law that sought to override a Federal law. We know that because that is what the High Court decided. I think one of the principles here that we ought to recall is this. You don't get to ignore the Constitution just because there is a complex problem. You don't get to ignore the Constitution as the first law officer of the country just because there is a political problem with one litigation that is before the High Court. You don't.

The Attorney-General, in his opening statement, spent a lot of time explaining to us why the Bell litigation was a problem. Just because it was a problem, doesn't mean that the Commonwealth gets to cut a deal on legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. That is not my opinion, that is the judgement of the High Court, to deal with what was clearly a political problem.

Can I also make this point in relation to that statement, and as I said, we will certainly, I think all of us will be going through this in great detail because it is the first time that Senator Brandis has broken his silence on this issue. He says it is the first time he has been asked about it. That is not true. We asked you in Question Time about it and, as usual, you avoided the question. I will provide you with the transcript with that. I suspect Senator Watt probably asked Mr Gleeson about it in the context of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. You were also asked about it Senator Brandis by the media on Friday when this matter broke and your spokesperson said "The Commonwealth doesn't comment on litigation matters to which it is a party". A blatantly false statement. Blatantly false. So don't come in here and tell us "I have never been asked". You are only doing this because you knew you had to. Probably because Mr Turnbull finally asked you to. That is the only reason you are doing this, you're not doing this because you thought it was the right thing to do, you were doing this because you were forced to do so. Dragged kicking and screaming.

I want to just go through a couple more matters in relation to what has been said publicly about this.

First, Premier Barnett has responded to the report in the West Australian. Let's remember that is a pretty damning report. It was a report which ran on Friday last week, it said that the Attorney-General had assured his State counterpart Michael Mischin would be avoided by the Commonwealth despite Mr Brandis' instructions that the ATO's written submission to the High Court authored by Mr Gleeson used the precise legal argument that the Attorney-General had assured his State counterpart Michael Mischin would be avoided by the Commonwealth.

There are two ways of understanding that. One is Senator Brandis has done one of those deals he walks away from. That is always possible. The other is that Mr Mischin got the wrong end of the stick, which I think is Senator Brandis' proposition. The point is that is clearly on the record. I don't believe it has been answered properly by the statement the attorney just gave. It is clear that the West Australian Government's position is very clearly that they had been assured by this minister, this Attorney-General that that argument would be avoided. Mr Mischin was infuriated by the ATO's move, not only because its argument in the High Court was on a basis the Commonwealth had promised not to advance but because he thought the tone of the submission professed the constitution and the Commonwealth was kept abreast with the State's intentions with Western Australia openly discussing the constitutional issues concerning legislation and sharing early drafts.

So it is not like this is a new thing. They had an exchange of papers, an early draft here and there, checking out if this is okay but Senator Brandis wants us to believe he wasn't part of it at all, he knew nothing about it. It is all Mr Hockey's fault. Bring him back from Washington and let him explain to everybody what happened. Then on the weekend, the WA Treasurer, Dr Mike Nahan, had received personal and written assurances early last year from Joe Hockey, that the Commonwealth would not oppose the State Government's moves.

Five days after the High Court heard the case Mr Mischin and Senator Brandis had a blazing row when the two Attorneys-General met in Perth. Mr Mischin told Senator Brandis he was unhappy that the Commonwealth intervened in the grounds pursued.

Let's remember the sequence here. This is happening in April, March and April. On May 4 Senator Brandis issued a directive that any department or agency seeking legal opinion from the Solicitor-General must first get Attorney-Generals approval. Senator O'Neill says locking the gate after the horse has bolted. I think that is true. Now he wants us to believe, as I infer from his statement, that there was no link. It was just happen stance. A happy coincidence that we had this blazing row. Mr Gleeson did what he should have done which was to unpick an unconstitutional law. Gave advice about that. How dare he do his job and then magically we have a Direction that says "You have to get my permission before you do that again". Nothing in the statement about that today, was there Senator Brandis? Nothing at all.

This Attorney-General has never given an adequate explanation never given an adequate explanation of why he sought to muzzle the Solicitor-General in the way he did. Of course we know he wasn't able to proceed with that because this Senate had the numbers to disallow that Direction, Senator Brandis beat a hasty retreat when he realised he didn't have the numbers to defend the Direction and then we disallowed in any event to prevent him making the same direction. I will take the interjection. A bit of fact. A fact is direction made. Fact is Attorney-General never explains adequately why Direction was made. Attorney-General never explains adequately why Direction was made. Fact - this direction comes shortly after a big blazing row with Western Australia involving the actions of Mr Gleeson. Those are all facts Senator MacDonald. They might be inconvenient facts to you but they are the facts.

That is a gaping hole in the statement that has been provided. Why is it that the Attorney-General shortly after these events moved to muzzle Mr Justin Gleeson? He now says there is no relationship. This is the problem isn't it? You treat people like mugs Senator Brandis, you really do. You really treat people like mugs. You expect everyone to believe that the Solicitor-General essentially told you this political deal contravenes the Constitution and the Commonwealth ought to intervene to uphold the law, uphold the Constitution as is your duty. Yes, you followed his advice but only after it was given, only after it was required. Because before that point you are happy to go along with the deal Senator Brandis, weren't you? You were happy to go along with the deal.

Happy to go along with the deal but the reality is Senator Brandis is asking everyone to believe all of this chamber, all of the public to believe that his direction to Mr Gleeson had nothing to do with this. It just beggars belief, doesn't it? The time frame just beggars belief. Magically you woke up one morning and thought I will muzzle the Solicitor-General, I will do that today. That is a good idea. Nothing to do with this obviously problematic political circumstance which is arrived at in great part because Mr Gleeson stood up for a proper application of the law and for the right constitutional reading.

Can I say this, I am sure Senator Brandis was aware that the Opposition and the cross bench had sufficient numbers to suspend standing orders this morning in order to move the motion I move today. I am sure that Senator Brandis knew that he had to give a statement, not because he wanted to, because we all know from observing him in this chamber, he is not someone who likes coming in to explain himself. He is not someone who likes answering questions. He is not someone who likes to have to give an account of his behaviour. He has been forced to do so because he didn't have the numbers in the Senate and I suggest this, and I am happy if he stands up and says I am wrong. I suspect the Prime Minister phoned him and said "You have to do something about this".

I suspect Mr Turnbull finally found a back bone when it came to dealing with Senator Brandis and said "You know, you have had a bad week, George, you have called your colleagues mediocre, very, very mediocre. You have had a bad week but you really need to get into the chamber - I'm not surprised you're interjecting Senator Brandis - "Get into the chamber and explain yourself". I don't think this "We don't comment on matters to which we have been a party will cut it". It doesn't cut it. We know from the statement there remain many questions unanswered. What we know from the statement is this Government is seeking to throw Mr Hockey under a bus. Conveniently a deal which involved, a deal which involved Commonwealth taxpayers basically being deprived of money for the Commonwealth Budget because it suited a political deal with their mates in Western Australia.

We know that that occurred and we know that Mr Hockey was involved but what is clear is all the responsibility of that has been sheeted home to the person who is now the ambassador of the United States.

There are many more questions to answer. If it is the case that the rest of this Government was somehow magically unaware of this, you would have to answer what are you doing? What are you doing? If you have got hundreds of millions of dollars being provided to the WA Government under a political deal, a deal that is contrary to the Constitution, how is it possible that the cabinet is not informed? How is it possible that the Minister for Finance doesn't know? It affects the Budget he has responsibility for. How is it possible that the Assistant Treasurer doesn't know until later because the ATO is his or her agency? How is it possible that the Attorney-General doesn't know? How is it possible that the Attorney-General doesn't know that there is some arrangement about how this matter is dealt with before the High Court?

The reality is there was a political deal to seek to circumvent the Constitution and the Attorney-General's statement today does little to throw any light on the matter. What it does do is seek to blame Mr Hockey for this agreement.

It is quite clear what the tactic is and I look forward to the ambassador making his views clear about this issue.