Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I will speak only briefly to it, Mr Deputy President. I would normally leave it to later, except opportunities for subsequently speaking to reports are fairly rare these days, so I thought I should speak to it when the opportunity arose. I am not a member of the Privileges Committee and I have not had the opportunity to read the report that has just been presented by Senator Brandis, although I think Senator Brandis gave a very good, succinct and clear detailing of its findings and conclusions. I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs but I have not followed the detail of this issue, partly quite consciously. Once you are not across all the detail, it is better to just let it follow its course, rather than know half the facts.

I simply want to reinforce, firstly, what I assume is a unanimous finding, as all Privileges Committee findings are, to my knowledge, and say the nature of privilege and whether or not there is a breach of privilege or contempt is a quite specific allegation. It is one that I do not think is very well understood; that is, certainly once the media start reporting on it. Not surprisingly, this issue has had some controversy around it and some media coverage of it. I simply want to put on the record I think it is very much worth while for people, in ongoing debates around the broader issue of what the previous government and various officials did and did not know and when they did or did not know things, to actually read the specifics of what is in this report. So in having that debate, whatever their perspective on it, they will have it on an informed basis as to who said what and when and how that relates or does not relate to the specific issue of contempt and breach of privilege.

The wider matter of what the previous government knew with regard to the rendition of Mr Habib is important. I think it is one that certainly merits more examination, in the same way as making assertions about referring the matter to the Privileges Committee should not have been perceived as a prima facie indication of egregious fault. Also, the flip side is that this committee’s finding that there is no breach of privilege is not in itself a complete resolution of some of the questions that were raised about what was known with regard to the rendition of Mr Habib. So I simply take the opportunity to put that report in its broader context and to, once again, without having yet read the report, commend the Privileges Committee on its ability to deal with these issues within the specific ambit of its terms of reference, its role and its ability to do so in a unanimous way without getting distracted by the valid political debate around the wider issues. It is in that context very much worth absorbing the specifics of this report, and from that, hopefully, people will get a better understanding of what breaches of privilege do and do not mean when people raise these sorts of issues as part of wider public debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.