Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday we were debating the dissenting motion from Senator Brown. His original complaint lodged on 25 November referred me to a Privileges Committee and suggested that I had received a $30,000 donation from Metcash. I refute that, and put it on the record that yesterday Senator Milne accused me of virtually the same thing.

I made a statement—which you pointed out, Mr President—to the Senate on 26 November 2010 which said:

I have not received any donation from Metcash. The campaign donation referred to went directly from Metcash to the then Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia. I am informed by the party that it banked the donation in its central campaign account in July 2007.

I now put the matter on the record so that Senator Brown and Senator Milne will not repeat the accusation that I received money directly. There are a number of other retailers that have had donations from the Labor and Liberal parties.

On, I think, 24 November, Senator Kroger put before the Senate a notice of motion referring Senator Brown to the Privileges Committee. Senator Brown then hit out and found someone else about whom he could put a notice of motion up to refer them to the Privileges Committee, and that someone happened to be me. That was 12 months after I had made a statement in the Senate. As you correctly pointed out, Mr President, I did refer it to the committee. A letter was then received by the committee from legal counsel pointing out that it would be inappropriate for a Senate inquiry to run at the same time as the matter was before the court for determination. I then gave my opinion to the committee that I did not think we should proceed and that it should be withdrawn. On two occasions I denied that a $30,000 donation came to me, and I also put my opinion to a committee that I thought the matter should be withdrawn because it was going before the court. That is exactly what you, Mr President, read out.

Yesterday Senator Brown came in here calling foul, said that he has been ill-treated and accused you, Mr President, of ill-treatment. If Senator Brown has been ill-treated then I have been ill-treated, because he has done exactly the same to me as has been done to him. He came in yesterday and proposed that the notice of motion referring me to a Privileges Committee not be withdrawn but be postponed to 22 March. I believe this is hypocrisy at its worst. He has accused the Senate of holding him out over the Christmas period of two or three months, making him concerned about what was going to happen and pointing out that he could go to jail. But he does exactly the same to me. If Senator Brown were consistent, he would have withdrawn the resolution motion yesterday, but he did not—he postponed it.

What we have here before us is Senator Brown not accepting a ruling but trying to turn this place into a High Court. He has sought legal representation and he is going to change this Senate where we have a fair amount of give and take into a court. I find it totally unacceptable that he would do this.

I certainly have not got the money to be able to brief a SC or a Queen's Counsel. I have not got the money to do that, and there will be many other people in similar circumstances to mine. Senator Brown has got the money. If referred to the Privileges Committee, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to go out and hire a SC? Senator Brown got a huge donation—good luck to him. There is no reason why, after he has cried foul, he should then turn on me and say, 'Yes, Senator Boswell did this.' I have clearly stated and laid down before the Senate a statement, which you have accepted, that says, 'Yes, there was a donation. It went to a party. The party banked it.' Many others have received donations from other retailers. I suspect that the Greens have received many other donations. Donations are part of political life. Politics cannot run without money. But that does not mean you take money for a favour. I certainly have never done that.

I was incensed when the ACCC ruled out a takeover bid by Metcash. I have always supported small business and by blocking a Metcash takeover, the ACCC was preventing the independent sector building up and having the muscle to be able to compete with Woolworths and Coles. I wrote an article in the Australian about that and my views were actually supported by the court of Australia. It was then appealed, and my views again were supported by the appeal, which allowed the Metcash takeover to go through. So to suggest that I did anything in return for a favour is something I have never been accused of in my life—