George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Committee of Privileges, I present the 133rd report of the committee, entitled Possible false or misleading evidence before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate endorse the finding at paragraph 1.31 of the 133rd report of the Committee of Privileges.

That finding is that no contempt was committed in respect of evidence given by Mr Robert Cornall AO, Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, or Commissioner Michael Keelty, Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, or its predecessor, in respect of the Australian government’s knowledge of the rendition of Mr Mamdouh Habib to Egypt.

This matter was referred to the committee on 18 September 2007 on the motion of Senator Nettle, after the President gave the motion precedence in accordance with standing order 81. In giving precedence, the President summarised the matter as involving, and I quote:

… seemingly inconsistent answers given by officers at estimates hearings about the government’s knowledge that Mr Mamdouh Habib had been taken to Egypt. Some officers suggested a lack of knowledge or certainty on the part of government that Mr Habib was ever in Egypt, while other answers appeared to indicate a definite knowledge that he had been taken to Egypt.

The legal and constitutional affairs committee, at the request of Senator Nettle, had sought responses from Mr Cornall and Commissioner Keelty following the transmission of an ABC Four Corners program in June 2007 which raised questions about the veracity of their evidence. The committee was satisfied that it had not been given false or misleading evidence—except for Senator Nettle, who exercised her right to raise this as a matter of privilege.

The Committee of Privileges sought further responses from Mr Cornall and Commissioner Keelty, including as to the matters canvassed by Senator Nettle in raising the matter of privilege. The committee also asked the legal and constitutional affairs committee for an account of its consideration of this matter and of its deliberations on the responses the committee received from Commissioner Keelty and Mr Cornall as to whether they had given false or misleading evidence.

Paragraph 12(c) of privilege resolution 6, which sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters constituting contempts, provides that a witness shall not:

… give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.

Furthermore, privilege resolution 3, which sets out criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt, requires the committee to take into account whether a person who committed an act which may be held to be a contempt:

(i) knowingly committed that act, or

(ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act.

The committee had no evidence before it to support any contention that either Commissioner Keelty or Mr Cornall intended to mislead the legal and constitutional legislation committee or its successor. An essential element of the contempt, therefore, could not be established, and on this basis the committee has found that no contempt has been committed.

I will read the conclusion, paragraph 1.31:

... The committee concludes that neither Commissioner Keelty nor Mr Cornall knowingly gave false or misleading evidence to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in respect of their knowledge of whether Mr Mamdouh Habib had been taken to Egypt. The Committee therefore finds that no contempt was committed in this regard.

In fact, the committee went further, although it was unnecessary for the finding, in paragraph 1.29, when it concluded:

... Overall ... the committee concludes that, although in certain respects the evidence of Mr Cornall and Commissioner Keelty was equivocal, it was not in fact misleading given the state of these officers’ knowledge at the time and the terms of the relevant questions addressed to them.

The Committee of Privileges has dealt with numerous cases of possible false or misleading evidence and this is the sixth case involving evidence given by officers at estimates hearings. In the report, the committee has made some general criticisms of the quality of evidence given at estimates hearings, particularly where officers give the narrowest possible answers to questions posed by senators who are obviously interested in obtaining as full an account as possible of a particular matter. In fairness to officers, however, it ought also to be observed that the answers given depend in part upon the skill and precision with which the questions are posed. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave not granted.