Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Hansard source

A mat-ter of privilege has been raised, under standing order 81, by Senators Forshaw and Murray in a letter to me dated 7 December 2006. The matter of privilege relates to evidence given before the then Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2005. A witness before the committee made statements which subsequent evidence threw into doubt and which were subsequently the subject of investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission. The commission was unable to conclude its investigation because of its inability to use the parliamentary evidence. The witness concerned has repeatedly failed to respond to requests by the committee—and its successor, the current Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration—to clarify his evidence, despite the committee drawing his attention to the rules of the Senate relating to misleading evidence and refusal to provide information to a Senate committee. The matter raises questions under the Senate’s rules, contained in paragraph (12) of Privilege Resolution No. 1 of 1988, concerning the giving of false or misleading evidence to a committee and the refusal to answer questions put by a committee when required to do so.

Under standing order 81, I am required to determine whether a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee should have precedence over other business, having regard to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate’s power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.

In past presidential determinations, the principle has been followed that a matter should be given precedence if it is capable of meeting criterion (a)—that is, if the matter raised is of sufficient seriousness potentially to warrant the invocation of the Senate’s privilege jurisdiction. Criterion (b) has been regarded as having been met if there is no other reasonably available remedy for the act in issue. As the senators’ letter points out, a possible available remedy in the form of action by the Australian Electoral Commission has proved to be impossible because of the factor already referred to. It is clear that only the processes of the Senate can offer any remedy.

Past cases of possible false or misleading evidence referred to the Privileges Committee, and the reports of the Privileges Committee on those cases, indicate that any suggestion that false or misleading evidence has been given has always been taken very seriously by the Senate and by the Privileges Committee. The matter meets the criteria I am required to consider, and I have therefore determined that a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may have precedence. I table the letter from Senators Forshaw and Murray.