Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Mr President, your ruling is wrong. The outcome of that ruling being wrong is that it will encourage entities which have a particular interest to protect to come before a Senate committee and give compelling evidence—and in this case we are talking about $2.9 billion, which is the cost of the CPRS as put forward by the government, and, as Senator Milne said, the loss of hundreds of jobs—but not do that when it comes to reporting to their shareholders and to the Stock Exchange. That is because there they face the potential of having to justify the statements.

Mr President, what you are doing here is saying that we have a lesser test in the Senate and its committee system than what is required for these companies in other arenas where they very likely have to justify the statements they made. You said:

It is obviously difficult to proceed from such a situation to a conclusion that the evidence may have been false or misleading, much less to a conclusion that the witnesses knew that the evidence was false or misleading and had the necessary … intention.

It is not, with respect, your job to come to that conclusion. It is your job to assess whether there is sufficient doubt about the matter to have it referred to the Privileges Committee for it to come to that conclusion or to dismiss that outcome. If we move to the position where the President in this place makes the judgment before allowing the matter to proceed to the Privileges Committee then we can abolish the Privileges Committee.

I am very alarmed. This is the fulcrum of our democracy. It is very important that the committee system which informs the Senate is not misled by omission or commission. The statements coming from these corporations warranted testing. Where they ought to have been tested—that is, by then proceeding to inform their shareholders directly—they demurred. That prima facie says that in their minds they felt it could not be justified. On that basis alone this matter ought to have gone to the Privileges Committee for assessment.

I am very concerned by the precedent being set here, which is that if the President decides that there is not enough evidence contrary to matters brought before Senate committees then it should not go to the Privileges Committee. We ought to have standards of evidence at least as high as those required by the Stock Exchange or the laws governing companies to be fully open in their disclosure to their shareholders.

Senator Milne’s proposal ought to have been adopted by you, Mr President. We are not going to proceed with challenging this ruling, because it is quite obvious that the government and the opposition will not accommodate that. However, I think it needs very serious contemplation because what is being established here today is that the Senate does not have the strength of determination on whether matters are true or not that pertains under the law in the commercial sector. Is that what we want to see established? I certainly do not. If wild or exaggerated claims or claims that cannot be substantiated are made before a Senate committee, they should be questioned.

I fear your ruling, Mr President, will simply encourage the corporate sector to fox Senate committees, the Senate itself or the parliament in future. Neither Senator Milne nor I want to see that at all encouraged. In fact, if you find the standing orders wanting then we ought to be looking at tightening them to make sure that committees are not subject to foxing by powerful entities with wild and exaggerated claims, including claims of future doom and gloom which cannot be substantiated.

There the matter stands. Senator Milne has indicated that she will look at the options available. But the Greens are making a stand here for everybody who is brought before Senate committees, not least so that the big and powerful corporations, which have a huge impact and lobbying power in this parliament, cannot through thunder and exaggerated claims alter the outcome of committee or Senate deliberations. That should not be entertained. I doubt, Mr President, that this ruling would have been made in the US congress, where there are much fewer rules to prevent Senate committees finding out the whole truth, all the truth—and that includes things that companies might like to omit.

Surely, something that is put to Senate committees with the strength and vigour that these corporations did ought to be something that is put to their shareholders through the proper legal channels. They failed to do that; they did not do that. They clearly did not want to or plan to do it. They must have had reason to fear proceeding down that path. Yet here we are in the Senate today saying, ‘But it’s okay to do to the Senate what can’t be done to the Stock Exchange or to shareholders.’ We demur. We think the ruling is wrong and we will be looking at how the Senate processes can be strengthened to protect the interests of the Senate as the watchdog of the people. That is what is at stake here.