The Australian Federal Police are investigating the leak of information about raids on the Australian Workers’ Union offices, attorney general George Brandis has revealed.
Brandis then used the AFP investigation as the basis for refusing to answer questions about the AWU office raid in Senate estimates on Friday.
Advance notice of the raid leaked to the office of the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, resulting in a tip-off to the media, forced her senior media adviser to resign on Wednesday. On Thursday, Cash survived a political assault from Labor after Malcolm Turnbull said she had acted “entirely appropriately”.
Brandis, attending an extra employment estimates hearing on Friday in Cash’s stead, began by reading a letter from AFP detective superintendent Andrew Smith to Cash advising that the AFP had begun an investigation into the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information about the raids.
“As the matter is under investigation it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter further,” the tabled AFP letter states.
Brandis said: “Therefore neither I nor any officer that may be called ... will be accepting any questions in relation to that matter at the request of the AFP.”
Labor senator Doug Cameron noted that the AFP could not determine the processes of the Senate and described it as “highly unusual” for it to attempt to direct the hearing.
Brandis said it was a “mischaracterisation” to suggest the AFP was directing the committee. Committee chair Linda Reynolds said potential prejudice to an investigation was a legitimate reason to refuse to answer questions.
Brandis then made a claim for public interest immunity in relation to “all matters the subject of investigation”.
He said answering committee questions could cause prejudice including inhibiting witnesses providing information, influencing police lines of inquiry or witnesses’ evidence, and disclosing “avenues of inquiry including potential suspects”.
The estimates hearing continued with witnesses from the Registered Organisations Commission. The Australian Building and Construction Commission was due to give evidence on Friday afternoon.
In a separate federal court case, the AWU is challenging the legality of the raid and the investigation, including arguing that because Cash referred the GetUp donation matter to the ROC, the matter was politically motivated.
On Friday the AWU, AFP and ROC agreed to a timetable for the defendants to file a defence by 1 December and hold the substantive hearing later that month.
The AFP gave a commitment that no documents seized in the raid would be handed over to the ROC until the case was heard.
In the tense estimates hearing, ROC executive director Chris Enright refused several questions about the AWU matter on the basis it would be contempt of court, leading Cameron to accuse Brandis and the ROC of a “cover-up” before he was forced to withdraw the comment.
In a statement the AWU’s lawyer, Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, said the union had handed over disclosure statements from 10 years ago in relation to the GetUp donations before the raids.
He said the union had also pressed the regulator for “information about the political interference by the Turnbull government in this matter”.
“Disturbingly, the ROC has refused to hand over all file notes of its communications with minister Cash and her office and we will continue to seek all such documents as part of the federal court case.”
In the hearing, Enright and ROC commissioner Mark Bielecki denied the claims of political interference, noting that the minister had no power to direct the agency which had formed an independent judgment to investigate the AWU after the referral.
On Thursday Cash suggested to the ROC that it should refer the matter to the AFP but was unable to answer questions about the “media source” of the leak because her senior adviser, David De Garis, had refused to reveal their identity.
When Labor pushed for an extra Friday hearing, Cash declined to attend citing a “longstanding commitment” in Perth.
On Wednesday Labor senators had questioned whether the leak to Cash’s office could constitute an offence and whether De Garis’s conduct could constitute the offence of obstruction of commonwealth officials.
Cash has said De Garis “misled” her, resulting in her telling Senate estimates five times on Wednesday that her office was not responsible for the tip-off. On Wednesday evening De Garis admitted to Cash he had briefed media and resigned, forcing Cash to correct her evidence.
