Scott Morrison says he doesn’t intend to ask his predecessor Joe Hockey whether he entered an agreement with the Western Australian government in the Bell Group controversy that would have cost the federal government hundreds of millions.
The treasurer told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday that he wouldn’t seek particulars from Hockey, who is now Australia’s ambassador in Washington, because he didn’t believe there were questions to answer.
“I don’t think there is any issue. The case was prosecuted successfully, the Australian Taxation Office prosecuted the case,” Morrison told reporters.
“The proof is in the pudding. The case was prosecuted and won. It was prosecuted by the ATO. I think the government’s actions speak louder than others’ words.”
The Senate on Tuesday night set up an inquiry into the Bell Group controversy. The new inquiry will call two government ministers, the attorney general, George Brandis, and the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, to give evidence.
The investigation will examine conflicting accounts over whether or not there was a deal between the federal and West Australian governments in 2015 – when Hockey was treasurer – which would have cost the Australian Taxation Office $300m.
As well as examining “the nature and scope of any agreement reached by the commonwealth and Western Australian governments in relation to the distribution of proceeds” of the Bell Group liquidation, the new inquiry will also examine the attorney general’s actions in relation to the former solicitor general, Justin Gleeson.
The terms of the motion passed by the Senate require the committee to examine “any direction or instruction given by the attorney general to the solicitor general, either directly or through his office or department, in relation to the conduct of litigation concerning the proceeds”.
The committee will also explore whether there is any connection between the Bell case and a controversial direction to the solicitor general issued by Brandis subsequently.
The legal services direction curtailed Gleeson’s capacity to provide independent advice, prompting a spectacular public blow-up between Australia’s first and second law officers, which culminated in Gleeson quitting his post.
The controversy was kicked off by a report in the West Australian last Friday that alleged Brandis instructed Gleeson not to run a particular argument in the high court when a creditor of the collapsed Bell Group, which is associated with the controversial businessman Alan Bond, and its liquidator, challenged the constitutionality of a Western Australian law to take control of the group’s $1.8bn.
Hockey, thus far, has declined to comment.
