Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges is a very important committee of this House. It is important that at all times it operates in a constructive and bipartisan fashion, and I think that is what has happened in this case. One of the reasons it is important to do that is that if one goes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act one finds that the penalties under section 7 can be a term of imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual. They are pretty serious penalties. It is important that the committee operates according to procedural fairness, which it has done on all occasions, and affords an opportunity for individuals. I think we have done that in this process. The important thing to say is that the report and recommendation before the House is unanimous. I do not do that lightly because, as people who know me are aware, my whole background as a solicitor and barrister was as a defence lawyer—as a legal aid solicitor and as a public defender. But with my hat on as a member of parliament it is important to operate according to the guidelines of this particular committee and deal with issues on their merits. I can report to the House that, in my view, the committee dealt with this in a very sensitive and appropriate fashion.

True it was that we had to summons Ms Swift to appear before us. But she obeyed that summons; she came and she cooperated and answered questions. If one goes to the report one can see that the material before us was that the Australian Federal Police had received advice from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on 10 August and that on the basis of that advice no prosecution was initiated. That is because the criminal standard applied in terms of what the Director of Public Prosecutions was looking at. But when it came to the civil standard, the evidence before the committee was that there was a clear and manifest connection of Ms Harriett Swift to the activities of preparing and sending the press release and the letters purportedly from Mr Nairn. That was the evidence of the AFP representative. But, to her credit, Ms Swift, when the committee chair asked her: ‘Were you responsible in any way for the preparation and distribution of that correspondence or those press releases?’ her answer was, ‘Yes.’ She basically fessed up. I think that is something that we as a committee have taken into consideration in what we are recommending to the parliament today in relation to her: that she be reprimanded for her conduct. That is not a light recommendation; it is of itself pretty serious. But recommendations to this parliament could be more serious, and they have been in the past.

There was the celebrated case of Fitzpatrick and Browne. In the mid-fifties, the then Prime Minister moved for three months imprisonment; the opposition leader had moved another motion, which was lost. But, for more serious allegations, those two served three months imprisonment.

I think it is important to send a message to Ms Swift and any others who might care to engage in similar conduct that that sort of conduct will not be tolerated by this parliament because it undermines us as representatives. I do not have a problem with political action, political dissent, but I have a real problem with breaching the law or, in effect, committing a contempt of the parliament or a breach of a privilege of the parliament. I take this institution seriously. Ms Swift is someone who has knowledge of this institution. She has worked for a member of parliament. That should not be held against her. I raise it in the context of the fact that she understands the nature and course of her conduct. That is why I support this particular motion. I think it is a balanced motion. I think it is an appropriate recommendation. I think it sends the right message. We also say that we do not want to see a repeat of this conduct, because if there is a repeat of this conduct we will consider that conduct into the future. A repetition of this sort of conduct will not go down well, I think, with any future Privileges Committee.

I do recommend the motion to the parliament. I think it does strike the right balance. It is a unanimous recommendation and enjoys the unanimous support of all members of the committee. A number of members of the committee were not able to participate in the deliberation of the committee and did not want to speak in the parliament because they have personal knowledge of Ms Swift. That is appropriate. That is another indication of what we are attempting to do here to the best of our ability—that is, to conduct this in an appropriate manner. Where there might be potential for bias one way or the other, people remove themselves from deliberations, and they need to be respected for that. The truth is: there but for the grace of God go I, in terms of my determination of this particular complaint. The fact that it was Gary Nairn had nothing to do with it one way or the other. It could be any member of the House. My deliberation was not moved one way or the other in respect of the particular individual concerned, for whom I have a high regard—not for his politics, but that is another matter. They need to be looked at by members of this House in a proper way, especially where there is a potential for a penal provision or a recommendation by this parliament for a period of imprisonment. That is no mean thing.

I do have reservations about parliaments imposing periods of imprisonment, but that is a matter that we will look at down the track. We are not recommending that here or anywhere near that. Ms Swift does deserve to be reprimanded for her conduct, but we also took into account the fact that she did cooperate with the Privileges Committee, in her way, and did make an admission that in effect filled in the gap. It is all right for a police officer to make an assertion about what he felt. That of itself, in my view, did not quite get us there. But when Ms Swift readily admitted to the question from the chair, it was all over red rover in relation to her guilt. I recommend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context