Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Consistency was not given, but equally the report back to the Senate was then dissented upon by Senator Brown on that day. The timing of that was at the end of the parliamentary year, which we have all discussed.

From there, it comes to the commence­ment of this session of parliament. Yesterday the debate which concerns me moved into the detail of the matters raised by Senator Kroger and the defence given by Senators Brown and Milne, and again today by Senator Boswell. It is on both sides of the chamber. That is not the substance of what was before the Senate. What is before the Senate is dissent in your ruling, Mr President, and you have outlined why you believe your ruling is adequate and accurate. I support you in your statement and I support the rationale behind your ruling.

I move to a couple of matters that were raised and which I think need to be clarified. They were raised in debate yesterday and have, I think, left a gap or some misunderstanding as to what the role of the Senate or the Privileges Committee can be in these matters. I particularly refer to Senator Brown yesterday raising the matter of criminal proceedings. There are numerous safeguards and matters that happen under the Constitution in our standing orders. In relation to what Senator Brown raised so there is no doubt left as to where this matter is heading, Senator Brown and, I believe, Senator Milne, raised the matter of potential criminal proceedings.

With respect to paragraph (b) of privilege resolution No. 4 there are various criminal offences that may be relevant, and these include: (a) section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914, which provides for an offence of interfering with the exercise of a political right or duty; and (b) various offences in the Criminal Code Act 1995 relating to corruption and bribery of Commonwealth public officials, which includes members of parliament.

Senator Brown indicated that it was apparent that criminal proceedings could flow from this. However, the asking of the questions by Senators Brown and Milne is central to the case in Senator Kroger's report that such actions are proceedings of the parliament. Being proceedings of the parliament within the meaning of article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, and section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which we have been discussing, there is no capacity for such proceedings to be examined for the purpose of any criminal investigation or proceedings. As a consequence, the only remedy of the allegations and the conduct lies within the Senate's contempt jurisdiction. To state that clearly, it was left hanging yesterday that there was a potential criminal action resulting from what the Senate can determine. That is not the case. It is not the case because the statements were made under privilege here in this parliament.

In relation to the matter raised about Senator Boswell, and again it was the subject of debate yesterday and today, Senator Boswell has clearly outlined the matters concerned. Mr President, you determined—and this was some time ago now—that the matter:

… addresses criterion (a) on the basis that the need for senators to be seen to be free of any improper external influence is of fundamental importance to the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions …

You also said:

… the inquiry instigated by Senator Boswell is 12 months old and was completed in February this year. The committee, in effect, determined not to investigate the matter further after legal proceedings were instituted. Furthermore, as is evident from the material provided by Senator Bob Brown, Senator Boswell made a personal explanation to the Senate on 26 November 2010 in which he clarified allegations about the relationship between political donations and the reference to the committee.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to identify what, if any, other remedy could be provided by invoking the contempt jurisdiction and, in the circumstances, whether the threshold requirement for improper interference continues to be sufficiently apparent.

Mr President, whilst we have delved outside of the strict matter that was raised by Senator Brown—and it is his right to do so—in dissenting from your ruling, I wanted to clarify some of the points because I think it has left a cloud over what the real debate is and what the real issues are; hence my comments. I reiterate again that I do support your statement and your rulings.