Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests inquiry into whether the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, in a statement to the House on 21 May 2012 deliberately misled the House.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On 24 February 2014, the House referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests an inquiry into whether the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, deliberately misled the House on 21 May 2012, having regard to the findings against Mr Thomson made by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 February 2014.

This matter has a long history that will be well known to many members of the House. On 21 May 2012, in the last parliament, Mr Thomson, the then member for Dobell, addressed the House at length in response to a report of Fair Work Australia (now the Fair Work Commission) regarding his conduct while he was employed as a senior official of the Health Services Union. The following day, the House resolved to refer to the committee the question of whether Mr Thomson, in making his statement, had deliberately misled the House. The committee's inquiry was suspended on 14 February 2013 in accordance with the sub judice convention after criminal proceedings were commenced against Mr Thomson in Victoria. The inquiry then lapsed on the dissolution of the House at the end of the 43rd Parliament.

Mr Thomson was found guilty by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 February 2014 of a number of offences relating mainly to dishonest or fraudulent use of credit cards issued to him in connection with his employment with the Health Services Union. At the request to the House of the member for Dobell, Ms McNamara, the matter was granted precedence for consideration by the House. The House then resolved, on the motion of the Leader of the House, to again refer to the committee an inquiry into whether, having regard to the outcome of the criminal matters, Mr Thomson had deliberately misled the House.

The task for the committee in this inquiry was essentially to examine Mr Thomson's statement to the House on 21 May 2012 and the findings of the Victorian criminal courts to see whether the two could be reconciled. The committee's view is that they cannot. When considered in light of the criminal court's findings, it is apparent that Mr Thomson's statement contains factually incorrect material concerning Mr Thomson's personal affairs which Mr Thomson must have known was incorrect. The formal and deliberate manner in which the statement was made gives rise to a presumption that Mr Thomson's intention was to mislead the House, a presumption which there is no evidence to rebut.

Having formed the view that Mr Thomson deliberately misled the House on 21 May 2012, the committee then considered whether, in making the statement, Mr Thomson's actions may have amounted to a contempt of the House. The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that conduct does not constitute a contempt unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the House of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member. The committee's view is that it is fundamental to the proper functioning of the House for statements given to the House by members to be truthful. Making misleading statements to the House can impede its functions, including by diminishing the respect due to the House.

The imposition of punishment for contempt of the House is a matter for the House, but it is the role of the committee to provide guidance to the House as to an appropriate penalty in the circumstances. The committee considers that the contempt committed by Mr Thomson is a very serious one. The committee also notes Mr Thomson's personal circumstances and the pressure exerted by this matter over a lengthy period of time. With this in mind, the committee considers that an appropriate penalty would be for the House to reprimand Mr Thomson for his conduct.

The report I have tabled details the procedural steps taken by the committee in conducting this inquiry. I take this opportunity to note in particular that the committee has at each stage of the process, as it is required to under resolutions of this House, offered Mr Thomson a reasonable opportunity to put his side of the story. Mr Thomson's input was considered very carefully by the committee.

Finally, I advise the House that there appears to have been a breach in process as the committee finalised this matter. This will be considered further by the committee at its next meeting.

I sincerely thank the members of the committee for their work on this inquiry. The members for Chisholm, Scullin, Lyne, Mitchell, Hotham, Barker, Moreton, Hinkler, Pearce, Wannon, Berowra and Bonner have discharged their functions diligently, carefully and with great sensitivity. The committee particularly appreciates the advice from the office of the Clerk, including from Deputy Clerk Claressa Surtees, Stuart Woodley, Laura Gillies and Gillian Drew.

I commend the committee's report to the House.