Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Committee of Senators’ Interests, I table documents, including correspondence and minutes of the committee, in relation to two matters considered by the committee over recent weeks. I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

On 11 July 2006, Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz wrote to the committee raising a number of issues in relation to statements of interests lodged with the Registrar of Senators’ Interests by the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown. These issues concerned a bank account operated by Senator Bob Brown to receive donations to help finance legal action to stop logging in the Wielangta State Forest. Senator Abetz asked the Committee of Senators’ Interests to consider the following matters: (1), the issue of Senator Brown effectively soliciting anonymous donations by permitting online donors to withhold their names, and by not insisting that donors making direct bank transfers provide their names; (2), the issue of tardy disclosures; and (3), the issue of whether Senator Brown should have registered the proceeds of individual items at a fundraising auction.

In addition to asking the committee to examine and comment on these issues, Senator Abetz also asked the committee to consider a number of punitive or corrective actions. The committee has carefully considered the issues raised by Senator Abetz, including whether there were grounds for the committee to raise any of the issues as matters for inquiry by the Privileges Committee as possible contempts. The committee by majority decision resolved not to proceed down this path but to consider Senator Abetz’s correspondence as a submission made under standing order 22A(1) in relation to the form and content of the register and the registering of interests more generally.

As the committee pointed out in its reply to Senator Abetz, which I have just tabled, its role is not to police compliance by individual senators with the resolutions. It does not have enforcement powers. Compliance is encouraged through publication of the register on the one hand and, in serious cases, by the contempt jurisdiction of the Senate. The committee’s explanatory notes express the principle, inherent in the resolutions agreed to in 1994, that final decisions on the appropriate interpretation of the resolution are the responsibility of individual senators. Senators are responsible for making their own judgements about whether a conflict of interest exists or may appear to exist.

The relevant parts of resolution 3 on registrable interests require that senators’ statements:

shall cover the following matters:

                 …           …         …

(k) gifts valued ... at $300 or more where received from other than official sources ...

There is thus no explicit requirement for the individual sources of gifts to be identified. If senators choose not to identify the source of registrable gifts or, alternatively, choose to accept registrable gifts from anonymous sources, this is an exercise of judgement for which the senators concerned are responsible.

Members of the committee are mindful, however, that despite the emphasis on individual senators’ responsibility to interpret the resolutions and register their interests accordingly, those resolutions do not require the source even of substantial gifts to be identified. Therefore the committee intends to examine over the next few months whether the definition of registrable gifts under the resolutions, as currently framed, strikes the appropriate balance between senators’ private interests and their public duties.

In the meantime, the committee has decided to amend its explanatory notes for the guidance of senators in two respects. The first is to remind senators that it is their responsibility to arrange their affairs to ensure that they receive timely information from third parties so as to avoid being found in contempt by knowingly failing to comply with the time frame for notifying alterations of interests. The Senate recently agreed to amend the resolutions to extend this time frame from 28 to 35 days as recommended by this committee earlier this year in its second report of 2006. The recommendation was prompted, in part, by difficulties experienced by senators whose share portfolios are managed by third parties which provide periodic activity reports that may involve notifiable alterations. The same principle applies to statements from financial institutions which may contain details of registrable interests such as monetary gifts.

The committee also reminds senators that interests clearly involving two distinct registrable interests should be registered under the two headings. It has added another example to the relevant part of the explanatory notes to help senators make these decisions.

Time does not permit me to go into the detail of the committee’s response to Senator Abetz with regard to his requested remedies, but senators may now read it for themselves. It is important to stress that the committee is not empowered to enforce compliance with the resolutions by individual senators. Its role under standing order 22A is to oversee and report on arrangements for the compilation and maintenance of and accessibility to the register.

The second matter considered by the committee was the unauthorised disclosure of Senator Abetz’s correspondence to the committee, which was quoted in detail in an article by Louise Dodson, entitled ‘Brown blip growing on Coalition’s radar’, published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 8 August 2006.

In accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 20 June 1996, which sets out procedures to be followed by committees affected by unauthorised disclosure of proceedings, documents or evidence, the committee took appropriate steps to identify the source of the unauthorised disclosure. The article appeared on the first day of the spring sittings before the correspondence, along with other meeting papers, had even been distributed to committee members. In view of this, committee members were not asked for an explanation for the disclosure, but explanations were sought from the committee’s staff and Senator Abetz. I have tabled those responses.

Senator Abetz advised the committee that a copy of the correspondence was inadvertently given to the journalist concerned by a temporary member of his staff filling in for his press secretary who was then on leave. Senator Abetz outlines the circumstances in his response and also conveys the unidentified staff member’s apology to the committee.

All senators will be aware that the unauthorised disclosure of documents submitted to a committee may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. They will also know that the Privileges Committee has conducted numerous inquiries into unauthorised disclosures of committee proceedings involving varying levels of harm caused as a result. The 1996 order of the Senate I referred to earlier was augmented last year by a sessional order which requires committees affected by unauthorised disclosures to make a more rigorous assessment before raising them formally as matters of privilege.

The sessional order was adopted after a comprehensive inquiry by the Privileges Committee into the whole issue of unauthorised disclosures. The sessional order includes more detailed guidance for committees on the types of matters which should or should not be raised as matters of privilege. The Senators’ Interests Committee has applied these orders to the case in question. Although the committee was able to identify the source of the unauthorised disclosure, and although the publication of the article pre-empted its consideration of the correspondence and added a further level of difficulty to the matter, thereby affecting the committee’s ability to deliberate dispassionately, its ultimate decision to publish the correspondence by tabling it today places this case within the category identified in the sessional order as not warranting raising as a matter of privilege. In coming to this decision the committee was greatly assisted by the guidance provided by the two orders and did not find it necessary to seek advice from the Privileges Committee as contemplated in the sessional order. I commend the documents tabled on behalf of the Senators’ Interests Committee to the close scrutiny of all senators.