Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed he did, Senator Parry. On other occasions Senator Hurley, in the chair, asserted that the Treasury officials had answered Senator Abetz’s questions before they had even been given an opportunity to respond. Senator Hurley also repeatedly asked witnesses if they would like to answer the questions. Mr Deputy President, you would know that it is not the role of a chair to determine which questions have to be answered, and it is certainly not the role of a chair to tell witnesses that answering a senator’s question is an optional exercise. That is a matter which I think needs to be looked at at another time, because the role of chairs in this parliament goes very much to the integrity and good functioning of this parliament.

Mr Deputy President, witnesses before a Senate committee are effectively under oath. They appear before the Senate to answer its questions and are expected to do so to the best of their ability. As I say, I do not think the unprecedented intervention by the chair helped uncover the truth at that committee. It is important, I think, that all senators take very seriously their responsibility to uncover the truth and ensure that Senate committees fulfil that task. It is clear that the government has a lot that it wishes to hide in relation to OzCar. They would not be engaged in the unprecedented smear campaign against the Leader of the Opposition through the media and the parliament if they were not worried—and, for that matter, also the smear campaign against Senator Abetz.

The publicly available evidence makes it clear that Mr Swan does have serious questions to answer. His suggestion that Mr Grant was the recipient of normal constituent services is laughable. Mr Grant was clearly the beneficiary of special treatment. No other car dealer received the care, attention and assistance as promptly or as comprehensively as Mr Grant did. Mr Swan needs to answer the charges against him. He needs to fully disclose any other matters which are relevant to this case, and I hope he does so for the proper functioning of this parliament—that is, that ministers are open, honest and transparent. That is all the opposition is seeking: answers to legitimate questions.

Just before I conclude, I cannot finish without responding to some of the comments and some of the contributions of Senator Brown earlier in this debate where he said that the coalition had vetoed a reference to the Privileges Committee. He said that the Senate, and the opposition, had effectively vetoed a reference to a court—viewing the Privileges Committee as a court of the parliament. I think the Senate took the right decision. The Senate did the right thing. The Privileges Committee has never been used for partisan political benefit and it is important that this chamber ensures that the Privileges Committee is never used for that sort of purpose. One of the great strengths of the parliament is the Privileges Committee. Its operation goes to the integrity of the parliament. A Privileges Committee operating correctly and appropriately is one of the safeguards ensuring that the parliament and senators are behaving appropriately. It is for that reason that I believe the Senate took the appropriate decision—took the decision that it did—that the Privileges Committee not be embroiled in what was clearly a very partisan and political reference to it. That is not the purpose of the Privileges Committee.

The Senate has made its decision. It is not a decision that Senator Brown likes. Senator Brown is something of a sore loser. He has lost a few things recently—I think there was a court matter and now he has lost a vote here on the floor of the chamber. I think Senator Brown was upset because the Senate had the temerity to defy ‘the will of Bob’. But the Senate has made its decision and it was the appropriate decision. Senator Brown also, I thought in a very cheap point-scoring exercise, criticised Senator Abetz for, in his words, ‘fleeing the chamber’. Senator Abetz did not flee the chamber; Senator Abetz was paired. Senator Abetz has stated to the chamber that he thought that, given the matter which the Senate was deliberating on related to him, the appropriate thing was not to be in the chamber. I think Senator Abetz was right to do that. I can imagine how, if Senator Abetz had stayed in the chamber and cast a vote on the matter, Senator Brown would be screaming and hollering how inappropriate it was that Senator Abetz was involved in the deliberations.