Attorney-General George Brandis won't be releasing legal advice drafted in relation to the Bell Group litigation.
Senator Brandis appeared before a parliamentary committee on Wednesday to answer further questions about whether he sought at any time to ensure the tax office, or the commonwealth, did not challenge West Australian government legislation relating to the assets of Alan Bond's failed group of companies.
A series of written answers to senators' questions declined to release legal advice based on "public interest" grounds.
Asked to explain the decision, Senator Brandis told the hearing the public interest immunity claim had been made with his authority.
"Self-evidently, the harm to the public is the publication of legal advice to the commonwealth which is confidential," he said.
He said this was an "absolutely common place ground" for such a claim.
Members of the WA government believed they had an agreement with Canberra not to seek to overturn the laws.
But the Australian Taxation Office and the commonwealth successfully challenged the laws in the High Court.
The Australian Government Solicitor revealed to the committee its legal work relating to the WA laws between July 2015 and May 2016 cost taxpayers $553,400, as well as $184,000 for the High Court proceedings.
The hearing continues.
Asked whether he received any advice before January 2016 on whether the commonwealth or tax office should intervene in the Bell case, Senator Brandis said his office would have received a routine monthly summary of High Court cases under way.
That summary would have said "a decision to intervene will be required", or words to that effect, Senator Brandis said.
"I wouldn't classify that as advice," he said.
Senator Brandis defended what the WA government was trying to achieve in its legislation, which passed the state parliament with Labor support in 2015.
"It was not controversial. It was an attempt in good faith by the West Australian government to bring a winding up that had already been going on for a quarter of a century to finality," he said.
"One of the basic rules of a good winding up is if you can settle the claims early before the lawyers and the insolvency practitioners and all the other people charging professional fees bleed the estate dry, then that's a good outcome."
The end result, following the High Court striking down the WA laws, was the winding up "could go on for another 20 years and there will be no money left at all", he said.
Share
