SENATE
2lbouby
2lbouby
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Page 2 Senate Friday, 17 February 2017<br />
Act allows the Attorney-General to intervene on behalf of the Commonwealth in any proceedings in any court<br />
that raises any issue involving the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 78B of the act requires that the Attorney-<br />
General, and state and territory counterparts, be given notice of any such proceedings. Under general<br />
arrangements approved by successive Commonwealth attorneys-general, section 78B notices are handled, in the<br />
first instance, by the AGS in consultation with the Solicitor-General and the Office of Constitutional Law. In<br />
practice, any 78B notice received by the Attorney-General's office is sent to the department, which in turn<br />
allocates the notice to AGS to deal with. Hundreds of section 78B notices are received each year. These<br />
arrangements also provide that in significant cases the Office of Constitutional Law puts a submission on the<br />
question of intervention to the Attorney-General based on AGS advice and consultation with any agency having a<br />
non-constitutional policy interest.<br />
Mr Moraitis has also outlined a number of issues arising from the committee's invitations to the department to<br />
appear which I would like to draw to the committee's attention as they remain relevant to the assistance that we<br />
may be able to provide today. Paragraph 4.8.1 of the guidelines for official witnesses states:<br />
Legal advisers owe a duty to their clients not to disclose the existence or content of any advice. It would therefore be<br />
inappropriate for any official who has provided legal advice to government, who has obtained advice from an external lawyer<br />
or who possesses legal advice provided to another agency, to disclose that advice.<br />
Paragraph 4.8.2 states:<br />
Where an official has been asked a question about the content of legal advice, it may be appropriate to advise the committee<br />
that such information might properly be subject to a public interest immunity claim and refer the question of disclosure to the<br />
responsible minister.<br />
AGS's work in relation to the Bell Group litigation is limited to providing legal advice and acting as lawyers for<br />
the Attorney-General and for the Commissioner of Taxation. The guidelines for official witnesses make it clear<br />
that it would not be appropriate for AGS to disclose any advice without the informed prior approval of its clients<br />
so as not to compromise any public interest immunity claims that those clients may wish to make. Accordingly,<br />
before AGS could respond to such requests for information, it would seek the opportunity to consult with its<br />
clients about the specific request, and that may require consultation with both the Attorney-General and the<br />
Commissioner of Taxation and include officials in the department as well as the ATO. In these circumstances, to<br />
the extent that the committee seeks information about AGS's work for its clients, it is important that that<br />
information be sought directly from the clients themselves and not from AGS, because it is the client, not the<br />
lawyer, AGS, which has a particular privilege interest which may give rise to public interest immunity claims.<br />
More broadly, the concern for client confidentiality, which is recognised in the guidelines, reflects an<br />
underlying concern for the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship. The trust and confidence which clients place<br />
in their lawyers is essential to the maintenance of the lawyer-client relationship, and AGS is concerned not to take<br />
any steps which may be seen by its clients, both in this inquiry and more broadly, to be inconsistent with that<br />
relationship. Similar considerations also apply in relation to Mr Faulkner.<br />
There is one other matter that I would like to raise. A number of questions were taken on notice at the hearing<br />
on 7 December. I believe answers to those were provided to the committee last night, and I am not sure whether<br />
those have been published by the committee.<br />
CHAIR: We have those answers now before us. I think we have all had access to them this morning.<br />
Mr Anderson: If I can go one step further and ask whether they have been published or not and whether they<br />
are still confidential to the committee or whether we can answer questions about them, should the committee ask<br />
questions?<br />
CHAIR: We would like to ask you questions about them, so I guess we need to work out whether to resolve to<br />
make them public now. You have no objection to those being made public?<br />
Mr Anderson: We have no objection.<br />
CHAIR: We will move to make those public now.<br />
Senator LUDLAM: So moved.<br />
CHAIR: Mr Anderson, I want to step through some parts of your opening statement with you briefly. You<br />
will note in my own opening statement I made the comment that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth<br />
or of a state shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to<br />
refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. That resolution prohibits only questions<br />
asking for opinions on matters of policy and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or<br />
factual questions about how and when they were adopted. I just want to make sure that you are all clear about that<br />
part of your obligations before this committee today.<br />
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE