SENATE

Page 8 Senate Friday, 17 February 2017
Senator BACK: I am. I will in fact just make that observation and thank you for your earlier comments. As
we all know, it is longstanding practice of governments of both persuasions to decline to disclose legal advice,
and I appreciate your efforts, Senator Watt, in that.
Gentlemen, by way of background, my recollection, supported by my good colleague, was that the Bell Group
was a heavy transport trucking company. Do any of you have any idea why the Western Australian government,
representing the taxpayers of Western Australia, would be involved in any litigation relating to a trucking
company?
Mr Faulkner: Speaking for myself, I certainly do not feel competent to answer. Perhaps the only answer I
could give in that regard is that the litigation that we have been dealing with in the High Court, of course, is all
about arrangements for liquidation of certain companies whatever the area in which they trade might have been.
Senator BACK: Perhaps I can assist for those who might be listening. Bell was a very long established and
very successful heavy transport trucking company in Western Australia and was purchased by the then corporate
raider Mr Robert Holmes a Court simply because it was a business that had a very high cash flow, which of
course was attractive to Mr Holmes a Court. In 1987, Holmes a Court got himself in the stock market crash into
very severe financial difficulty and turned to his friend, the then Premier Burke, to bail him out. The end result of
that was that the Bond group—Mr Alan Bond and his group—purchased 19.9 per cent of Bell and, lo and behold,
the other party to purchase 19.9 per cent was none other than the state government Insurance Commission of
Western Australia. So Mr Burke has used the finances of the Western Australian taxpayer to bail out his mate
Holmes a Court and, of course, then Bond goes to the wall, Bell goes into liquidation and we find ourselves in the
very sad circumstance of today. So it is important, if I may, to put into context the background to all this because
under no circumstances at any time in a well-run or honest government would we ever have had the people of
Western Australia being co-owners of a heavy transport trucking company.
Can I take you to the correspondence of Dr Nahan? Are you familiar with that letter? I understand it was
received on 15 April 2015. It is a letter from state Treasurer Nahan to federal Treasurer Hockey. Is that a letter
with which you are familiar?
Mr Faulkner: We have seen that letter.
Senator BACK: My first question is—and perhaps you might be able to take it on notice for me—Nahan
spells out to Hockey the circumstances relating to the interests between the Western Australian government and
possibly the federal government. He makes the point:
The Bell Group litigation is infamous for its length and cost.
Of course, this led to the WA Inc. royal commission. The scene was so rotten that by the time the Hon. Carmen
Lawrence became Premier, acting particularly with the heavy pressure of her brother Bevan Lawrence, she was
minded to call for a royal commission into what became known as WA Inc. Right at the centre of WA Inc. was
the Bell situation. Nahan makes the comment that:
The Insurance Commission of Western Australia ('ICWA')
—here it is again—
has spent about $200 million funding the liquidator of the Bell Group in his successful action against the 20 Australian and
foreign banks…
You may not know, but I wonder if you could take on notice, and if you could advise the committee, how much
of anything did the Commonwealth of Australia contribute to those costs of litigation? I know how much Western
Australians did because the government of Mr Richard Court imposed a $50 levy on every vehicle licence for
many years to pay for the Western Australian taxpayers' contribution. But I am keen to know, did the
Commonwealth contribute anything and, if so, how much did the Commonwealth contribute? If you could take
that on notice, I would be appreciative.
Mr Anderson: If I could just note: it is highly unlikely that information would be information held by the
department, including by AGS.
Senator BACK: Is it? Perhaps I can find others.
Mr Anderson: If we can take it on notice we are committing to give you an answer. I am just saying I do not
think we will be able to answer that question ourselves.
Senator BACK: All right, thank you. Nahan goes on to say that the liquidator, as result of that successful
litigation for which the Western Australian taxpayers paid, has approximately $1.7 billion available to it.
Incidentally, Nahan makes the point, not in this correspondence but in other correspondence, that the actions
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE