Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

As the main target of Ms Swift’s illegal campaign, I speak today in support of the Privileges Committee report. I want to put on the record my thanks to all those on the committee for defending me, which is what the committee effectively did and something that I would expect the committee would do for any member of parliament in a similar circumstance. I would like to say a little about the history of this because I think the actions need to be put into some context. People associated with Ms Swift, and I use those words carefully, have for quite a number of years engaged in this type of activity. South East Fibre Exports, a company that operates the chip-mill in Eden, formerly known as Harris-Daishowa, had this type of activity happen to them on numerous occasions over the years, with press releases being issued supposedly on the letterhead of Harris-Daishowa and on the letterhead of their Japanese parent company, and other associated entities, as if they were coming from those particular companies. But, each time, they were really coming from a group of people who have never accepted the results of things like the regional forest agreement, which has ensured that the very old growth forests in our region have been put into national parks and wilderness, in certain circumstances, but that substantial forested areas still remain available for sustainable forestry.

They have never accepted the umpire’s decision. They are insatiable. No matter how much you give, they only want more. I can put up with arriving at functions, which I have with the Prime Minister, where Ms Swift has thrown woodchips at us, and other related activities. I was not real impressed with one of her supporters who spat on my late wife as we went to a function in Eden once. You put up with those sorts of things. I was even prepared to put up with the press release that was issued in April 2005 that was purportedly from me which related to forestry activities. It made out that all of a sudden I was a born-again greenie and was not going to support good, sustainable forestry anymore. News outlets rang me to say: ‘We’re a bit confused about the press release. Is it fair dinkum?’ We had them sent through and I realised what was going on in that instance. I was even prepared to put up with that.

I was going to put out a press release once again highlighting these sorts of activities, but I looked at the letterhead—it was a pretty good copy—and I thought, ‘They really are going to town now with this sort of activity.’ But I was still prepared to let it go, until I got a phone call from Phil Mathie, who runs a logging company, Bruce Mathie and Co., at Narooma. A week or two earlier I had announced a grant of $165,000 to that company under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package, a joint package between the Commonwealth and the states to assist companies moving to better sustainable forestry activities. They were able to access a grant of $165,000. It had been going on for some time. There is always a bit of argy-bargy between the Commonwealth and the states before the funding actually happens, but he knew it was potentially going to happen. Knowing that they might be getting this sort of assistance, any small business person would probably be setting up their affairs in such a way as to ensure that when the $165,000, which is not a small amount of money, arrived, it would substantially help the company. He would have been expecting it.

What he was not expecting was to get a letter from me a couple of weeks later—or supposedly from me—saying, ‘Sorry; the government has re-looked at this whole issue; it doesn’t believe that the private sector should benefit from taxpayers’ money and the grant is being rescinded.’ He rang my office in some distress when he got the letter. He said, ‘What the hell is going on?’ You can imagine the situation if, two weeks earlier, you had a grant of $165,000. People in that situation do not look at the date and think, ‘Oh, it is 1 April; that’s funny—ha, ha, it’s a prank.’ That does not happen. That was the point at which I said, ‘Enough is enough; I’m not going to put up with this.’ That is why I initially referred it. It was a difficult period, and it is relevant to something else I will say before I finish today. I think I said at the time I raised it in the parliament that I should have done it a touch earlier. But that April-May was a difficult time as far as my life is concerned, because it was the last two months of my wife’s life so I had to put a couple of things off, and a few other things were happening at the time as well. I was not prepared to continue with it and I referred it to the police. It went on for some time. The police do not act on these things very quickly, but, ultimately, after consultation with the Clerk of the House, I raised it in the parliament and it was the Speaker who correctly referred it to the Privileges Committee.

During the period of all these investigations, further letters appeared. In fact, the Privileges Committee supposedly received a letter from me on my letterhead, with my blue signature—which I always use—basically saying, ‘Why are you guys taking so long to deal with this matter?’ It did not come from me; it was another letter from Ms Swift. In my view she was effectively putting her finger up to the parliamentary processes, which is appalling. Even since this report was brought down two weeks ago she has been in the press basically saying, ‘I’m not going to take any notice of that.’ That is the way she operates. Also, last year, letters were sent to John Sparkes, who was the General Manager of South East Fibre Exports, supposedly from me, saying that I wanted to recommend him for an Order of Australia award because he had been so good in fighting the greenies. One was also sent to Phil Mathie but with riders. So the activities continued. Fortunately, John Sparkes never received the letter because, unfortunately, he died tragically in Canada two weeks earlier. So that is the sort of process that has brought it here today, with a reprimand from the parliament.

I have mentioned the activities of Ms Swift’s people over a number of years. She has got real form on this. In 1981 she was hauled before the Senate Privileges Committee for harassing Senator Brian Harradine with abusive phone calls. I understand it was at the time that Senator Harradine’s wife was dying, as someone said to me. I do not know the exact timing of that but that is as I understand the case. When her phone was traced as the source of the phone calls, and when she appeared before the committee, she said in defence:

I had a party at my house last night. I was not in the house all night—it is a flat, actually—but I was there probably for most of it. There were a lot of drunks at the party, not the least of which was me. Anyone could have used the telephone, including me. I must honestly say that I do not remember who made the call, whether it was me or someone else. That was the night of the Business Review magazine launching and there were a lot of drunks around. This is about all the light I can shed on it.

Since 1981 there has been this sort of activity. That is the attitude the person has towards the parliamentary processes: harassment and abuse of a senator, in that particular case.

The member for Canning said that he believed Ms Swift did not act alone, and I think he is right on that. I think that, in this case, Ms Swift has taken the rap, and probably for a good reason, because her live-in partner, Keith Hughes, a councillor on the Bega Valley Shire Council, I would suspect, was part of this as well, but the police could not necessarily make the connection. I guess he would want to keep away from these sorts of inquiries, because there would quite probably have been some substantial pressure put on him to resign as a councillor of the Bega Valley Shire Council. Also, several days ago, Mr Hughes was endorsed as the Green candidate for the seat of Eden-Monaro. I hope that all the people of Eden-Monaro understand the quality of the people who might put themselves forward for election at the federal election later this year. Given this whole sorry saga and how long it has gone on for—literally dating back to the early eighties—if the Greens have any moral fortitude, they would disendorse this person as their candidate.

In conclusion, once again I thank the committee for their diligent work on this. I think they have sent a very strong message. They could have fined this person or jailed them, but they decided to issue a severe reprimand. She has been found guilty of contempt of this parliament on five separate occasions. Nobody should take that as not being serious; it is very serious. This person does not seem to want to take it seriously, but she should. Given we are in the final year of this parliamentary term and some of these people get even more active politically, I would hope that a similar occurrence would lead to serious consideration of a fine or jail sentence.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context