Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests on its inquiry concerning the former member for Dunkley in the 44th Parliament, possible contempts of the House and appropriate conduct of the member.

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

by leave—This report details the committee's consideration of two complaints relating to the now former member of Dunkley in the 44th Parliament, the Hon. Bruce Billson.

The first matter was raised directly with the committee by the member for Isaacs, who wrote to the committee on 15 August 2017 querying whether the former member for Dunkley had acted contrary to the House resolutions on the registration of members' interests, specifically in respect of his association with the Franchise Council of Australia (the FCA) while he was still a member of the House.

The second matter was raised on the same day, in the House, by the Manager of Opposition Business, as a matter of privilege. This matter related to whether the former member for Dunkley, by accepting an appointment as, and acting as, a paid director of the FCA whilst still a member of the House gave rise to any issues constituting a contempt of the House or any issues concerning appropriate conduct in respect of a member's responsibilities.

Following the Speaker's statement in response to the complaint in the next sitting week, the House agreed to a motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to refer the matter to the committee.

As the two matters related to the same set of circumstances, the committee considered them together.

The committee received submissions from Mr Bruce Billson and from representatives on his behalf in relation to both matters. The committee received a submission from the FCA in relation to the matter referred by the House. In addition, the committee examined Mr Billson's statement of interests in the 44th Parliament. The committee considered the two complaints on the basis of the submissions it received, and through the framework provided by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 and the resolutions of the House on the registration of members' interests.

In respect of the matter relating to the registration of members' interests, the committee determined that Mr Billson had failed to provide alterations on his statement of interests relating to his engagement as executive chairman and independent director of the FCA, his receipt of payment by the FCA relating to that engagement, and on the separate issue of his receipt of payment for advisory services through Agile Advisory. The committee accepted Mr Billson's comments that he had failed to comply with the resolutions of the House due to error and oversight, and acknowledges Mr Billson's apology to the House.

The committee concluded that, in the circumstances, Mr Billson's failure to comply with the House's requirement did not amount to any intention to interfere improperly with the free exercise of the authority or functions of the House, and therefore do not constitute a contempt under section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

In respect of the second matter examined by the committee, the matter of privilege referred by the House, the committee determined that Mr Billson's acceptance of payment for services to represent the interests of the FCA, while a member, was in the nature of an interest where a conflict with a member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. Evidence to the committee from Mr Billson was that his appointment by the FCA had no bearing on the duties that he performed as a member and that his behaviour and position on relevant issues after his appointment did not change. The FCA stated that its motivation in appointing Mr Billson was not to have him use his position as a member of the House, rather it was based on his consistent position of advocacy in relation to relations important to the FCA.

The committee concluded that it did not receive clear evidence that Mr Billson had been improperly influenced in the performance of his duties as a member, nor that the FCA had intended to improperly influence Mr Billson while a member, and therefore no finding of contempt is made against either Mr Billson or the FCA.

Addressing the final aspect of the reference from the House, the appropriateness of Mr Billson's conduct in respect of his responsibilities as a member, the committee concluded that Mr Billson had misunderstood his obligations to the House. The committee's view is that it would have been more appropriate for Mr Billson to wait until he was no longer a member of the House before he accepted paid employment with the FCA, and that his decision to accept the role while still a member falls below the standard expected of a member of this House.

The committee has recommended that Mr Billson be censured for his conduct when he was the member for Dunkley for failing to discharge his obligations as a member in accepting payment for services to represent the interests of an organisation, and for failing to declare his personal and pecuniary interests in respect of this paid employment.

The committee has also recommended that the standing orders be amended to include an express prohibition on a member of this House engaging in services of a lobbying nature for reward or consideration.

The committee would like to take the opportunity afforded by this inquiry to inform members that it is the committee's strong view that it is highly inappropriate for any member of this House to accept an appointment and payment for services to represent the interests of an individual or organisation. The principle that members should base their conduct on is the primary consideration of the public interest, and they must exercise the influence gained from their public office as a member of the House, only to advance the public interest.

I would like to thank the committee members for their careful and considered approach to the conduct of this inquiry. It has raised issues that are vital for the representation of members individually and as part of the institution of parliament. We were fortunate to have on the committee many experienced members with wide-ranging backgrounds, including some former ministers. I must note that we were at all times respectful of each other's opinion and that the committee has worked together, in my opinion, in an exemplary way.

I would like to thank each member of the committee for the way they conducted themselves throughout the inquiry. It was a pleasure to work with you all, and may I pay special attention to the deputy chair, the Hon. Pat Conroy, the member for Shortland, for being an exceptional deputy chair and working so well with me and helping me to compile this inquiry.

It would also be remiss of me not to mention the outstanding job the secretary has done, especially mentioning Ms Claressa Surtees, the Deputy Clerk; Mr Peter Banson; Ms Laura Giles; and Ms Nicola Matthews. Thank you on behalf of the committee members. I commend the report to the House.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement associated with the tabling of this report.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House. I'm going to begin by agreeing with the chair of the committee and thanking the secretariat for their excellent work; applauding the chair's careful, deliberative and consensus-driven approach to this committee; and paying tribute to all the committee members. The House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests is, I say—and I'm biased—the most important committee in this House because it protects the autonomy, the independence and the reputation of the House of Representatives. I think this report goes to that quite directly.

On the Labor side there are over 80 years of parliamentary experience in our five members. On the government side there is the Father of the House in the member for Menzies. So there's a wealth of experience, and in all our reports we make a commitment to withdraw from partisan rancour and to concentrate on what is in the best interests of this House in maintaining the reputation of the House of Representatives as the paramount heart of democracy in this country. That's why this report is so important.

I want to begin by reflecting on the draft code of conduct for members of this House. It hasn't been adopted, but sections 5 and 6, I do think, guide the work of every member of this House. Section 5 is 'Primacy of the Public Interest', which states:

Members and Senators must base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interests and the requirements of public duty, and resolve any conflict, real or apparent, quickly and in favour of the public interest.

Section 6, 'Personal Conduct', says of members:

They should act at all times in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Parliament and its Members.

Now, while it is a draft code of conduct, I can say with certitude that every member of this House strives to follow those two commitments to the primacy of public interest and personal conduct in their behaviour in this House and as MPs. I regret to say that this inquiry found that the former member for Dunkley, the Hon. Bruce Billson, failed on both those counts. I say without any duplicity that I would draw the same conclusion and I'm confident the committee would draw the same conclusion if it was a Labor member, a Greens member or an independent member. The actions of Mr Billson did not meet the expectations and the standards of this House.

First, on declaration of members' interests, Mr Billson failed to comply with requirements in relation to his registrable interests, and an additional failure was discovered during the inquiry. This was quite incredible. Mr Billson disclosed to the committee that he'd also failed to disclose his activity of a personal company called Agile Advisory during the conduct of this inquiry. While the committee found that this did not constitute contempt as it was an oversight rather than deliberate, it was a failure to live up to the expectations and standards of this House.

Second, around the role of lobbying while a member of parliament, Mr Billson's acceptance of payment for services to represent the FCA represented a conflict of interest with his duties as a member of parliament. While there was no clear evidence that would have met the burden for contempt, it is very clear that Mr Billson generated a perceived conflict of interest.

Let's be clear here: members must make decisions to avoid misunderstandings and perceived conflicts of interest. That is the finding and the strong view of the committee, and to do otherwise damages the reputation of the member in question and the parliament. It's clear that Mr Billson damaged the reputation of himself, sadly, and the parliament, by not understanding that there was at a minimum a perception of a conflict of interest.

In fact, the committee expressed serious disappointment that Mr Billson continued to misunderstand his obligations throughout the process of this inquiry. The correspondence is attached to the inquiry's report. It's clear Mr Billson still does not understand that beyond an actual conflict of interest—the committee could not find that there was an actual conflict of interest, or there was a lack of evidence of such—there was most definitely a perception of a conflict of interest, and Mr Billson did not do anything to allay that perception. He should not have accepted the job he took with the FCA whilst a member. The committee found that his decision and behaviour fell below the standards expected of a member.

As the chair discussed, recommendation 1 is that the House censures the former member for Dunkley for failing to fulfil his responsibilities to put the primacy of the public interest first and to conduct himself along those lines. Recommendation 2 is that standing orders be amended to include an express prohibition on a member engaging as a lobbyist while an MP. I would say that common sense would suggest that that prohibition should already be in place. I think it's long overdue that the committee has recommended that. I think this House should definitely adopt that.

I will end where I began, by emphasising the bipartisan nature of this committee. There was no partisan rancour in the deliberations. I can say quite earnestly that if the behaviour we examined were undertaken by a Labor member I would be equally forthright in my criticism. These are really strong recommendations that demonstrate this committee is working effectively. We've held two substantive inquiries in the life of the parliament. This one has strong recommendations around banning lobbying whilst an MP and censuring a former member. The first one reasserted the authority and the autonomy of the chamber against the executive arm of government through the Federal Police raids conducted against the member for Blaxland. This is a very important committee doing very good work.

In conclusion, I want to express my disappointment at the way Mr Billson interacted with the committee. His correspondence is there to be seen. Probably more worryingly, given the high esteem they are held in in this House, I am also disappointed in the lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Billson, MinterEllison. I think their submission is quite incredible. They reflected on the ability of this parliament—this House of Representatives in particular—to be able to manage itself. It said, 'the fractious nature of the 45th Parliament and the precarious political balance impedes this self-management', which I find to be incredibly offensive and a slur on every single member of this House. The House Privileges Committee demonstrates that parliament and the House are able to get on and do their job no matter the numbers in the chamber, because ultimately the parliament is made up of good women and men committed to advancing the public interests of this nation. I commend the report to the House.