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

As a member of the Senate for 30 years, I appreciate that members of parliament are given considerable privileges, but with those privileges come great responsibility. Nowhere does this responsibility need to be exercised more judiciously than in statements about the actions and character of others.

In the Australian parliament, we can speak on the record without fear of the redress available through action for slander or libel or defamation that would be available if we were to make those same statements outside parliament. We are, indeed, in a privileged position. However, we must use this privilege wisely, responsibly and not maliciously—not, for example, to damage our political opponents or those we may dislike to gain personal advantage or settle a score with an old adversary and not, for example, by repeating unfounded, damaging rumours with not a shred of evidence to support them. Yet this is exactly what the member for New England did in the House of Representatives on 28 May. Tony Windsor made statements about rumoured donations to the campaign of his opponent, Barnaby Joyce, suggesting that Senator Joyce might receive up to $700,000 from Gina Rinehart. However, when challenged about his statement, Mr Windsor admitted he had no proof and that he was just repeating a rumour. That is not the standard of behaviour Australians expect from their members of parliament.

Sadly, Mr Windsor has form in this area. He has a habit of making unsubstantiated claims about people he considers political opponents. In the most recent example, Mr Windsor, under parliamentary privilege, said this:

In the seat of New England, there are significant rumours that the National Party candidate for New England … is to receive a quite substantial donation—some hundreds, perhaps even $700,000—from mining magnate Gina Rinehart.

He went on to say:

That is an easy statement to make, but I would like Ms Rinehart to clarify her position on how many hundreds of thousands she is giving to a candidate in New England. She does not reside in New England and I do not think she has any interest in New England. One has to ask why she is providing that sort of funding to a candidate in New England.

We all know that Mrs Rinehart in fact has not provided that funding to Barnaby Joyce. Mr Windsor could have discovered that, had he really wanted to, with a simple telephone call to Mrs Rinehart's office.

Mr Windsor achieved his real aim, which was to generate publicity he felt may be damaging to Barnaby Joyce. Mrs Rinehart was forced to publicly defend herself. She issued a statement that said, in part: 'It has maliciously been suggested that I have donated some $700,000 or hundreds of thousands of dollars to Barnaby's campaign, when a simple inquiry by the current member to me or my office, would have found that I have not done so, and have never been asked to do so.' Mr Windsor went on to imply a motive for Mrs Rinehart's rumoured donation—a donation we all know she did not make and was never been asked to make. Mr Windsor said:

I would suggest to Ms Rinehart that she clarify her interest in the seat of New England. Does it have anything to do with coal seam gas on the Liverpool Plains?

Here Mr Windsor implies a motive—to buy influence in relation to possible interests in gas deposits under the Liverpool Plains—a motive concocted from an unfounded rumour. Again, Mrs Rinehart was forced to publicly defend herself. Her statement said: 'My companies and I do not have any commercial interests at this time in the New England electorate, as has been mischievously suggested. Again, a simple enquiry to me or my office would have identified this but, instead, Mr Windsor stated misinformation under the protection of the parliamentary chamber to further his desperate campaign against a good Australian, Barnaby Joyce.'

It was interesting that Mr Windsor should be asking about coal seam gas on a day that the Australian newspaper was reminding readers that Mr Windsor's family farm at Werris Creek was sold to Whitehaven Coal in February 2010 for $4.6 million—about three times more than the average price per hectare paid for neighbouring farmland. After his 28 May statement under parliamentary privilege, Mr Windsor was interviewed on 30 May on the Sky News AM Agenda program by journalist Kieran Gilbert. This was part of their exchange about the supposed donation:

Mr Gilbert: What proof do you have of that suggestion?

Mr Windsor: I don't have any proof ...

Mr Gilbert: So it was rumour?

Mr Windsor: Yeah, my word. I've said it was rumour.

It was rumour—and innuendo—Mr Windsor's stock in trade.

In that same speech on 28 May, Mr Windsor referred to former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson as having 'come out of the woodpile' to head up Barnaby Joyce's campaign in New England. It is no secret that Mr Windsor dislikes John Anderson, dating back to a preselection contest for the Nationals in the seat of Gwydir in 1988, which John Anderson won and in which Mr Windsor was placed a poor fourth. Locals still recall Mr Windsor's shocking display of bad temper after that loss. Mr Windsor referred to both John Anderson and former Nationals senator, Senator Sandy Macdonald, who, like Mr Windsor, lives in the Tamworth region. As a loyal member of the Nationals, Sandy Macdonald is another on Mr Windsor's list of least favourite people. In his speech on 28 May, Mr Windsor linked both John Anderson and Sandy Macdonald with allegations that he, Mr Windsor, made back in 2004. The 2004 allegations concerned an alleged inducement for Mr Windsor to vacate his seat in parliament. Mr Windsor reminded parliament and the press gallery that this matter had been referred to the Australian Federal Police, and he left it at that. This is more innuendo, more of Mr Windsor's stock in trade. What Mr Windsor did not remind parliament and the press gallery of was that the allegations were dismissed by the Australian Federal Police and by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. After an investigation, neither the Australian Federal Police nor the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that there were any grounds for further action. Something else Mr Windsor did not remind parliament and the press gallery was that a subsequent Senate inquiry also found his allegations to be groundless and not worthy of further attention. Yet here is the current member for New England trotting out references to this issue once more, once more telling barely half the story, once more trying to gain some political mileage from a baseless allegation, just the same as he did before the 2004 election with the original claim.

In September 2004, less than three weeks before the 9 October federal election, he splashed in the media claims that he had been offered an inducement to leave federal parliament and not to run again for the seat of New England, which he later described as an attempt to bribe him. Although Mr Windsor alleged the supposed inducement had occurred in May 2004, it was not until September of that year, four months later—and in the middle of the election campaign—that he chose to make it public. Straightaway, Mr Windsor's mates in the Labor Party took up his claims and referred them to the Australian Electoral Commission and on to the AFP for investigation as a breach of the Electoral Act under the bribery provisions. Remember, this was just weeks from an election, so there was no time for the claims to be investigated before the election, but there was time to get plenty of sensational publicity.

The Australian Federal Police duly investigated and found no-one had a case to answer. The Federal Police even referred the claims on to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in case they had missed something, but the DPP could not find any grounds for prosecution either. So what happened then? Clearly suspecting the AFP and the DPP would determine there were no grounds for any prosecution, Mr Windsor chose to use the privilege of parliament and place his allegations on the record. In the House of Representatives, on 17 November 2004, Mr Windsor attacked both then Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and then Senator Sandy Macdonald, claiming they were behind the alleged inducement in May for him to leave parliament. The Australian Federal Police announcement came less than one week later, on 22 November. The AFP stated there was no evidence to sustain a charge in relation to the alleged inducement to Mr Windsor and that no charges would be laid. The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that:

… none of the versions of the conversations related by any of the witnesses can amount to an 'offer to give or confer' a benefit.

Further, the DPP said there was no evidence in the material of anyone having conspired to make an offer to Mr Windsor. It was a complete rout of Mr Windsor's allegations.

However, less than a fortnight later, on 29 November, despite the Australian Federal Police and the DPP having announced there was no case to answer, Mr Windsor again raised the issue in the House of Representatives. This time, he made more allegations and called for a parliamentary inquiry, preferably a Senate inquiry, into the various allegations that he had made in the House and into the broader implications of government funding and political preconditions he claimed were being placed on various packages of government funding, particularly the Regional Partnerships program arrangements. In fact, there was a parliamentary inquiry. Senators may recall that the then Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, lobbied very strongly on behalf of Mr Windsor for this inquiry to be conducted. Senator Brown even announced the inquiry's terms of reference in December 2004. It was conducted by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, with a majority of Labor senators. Mr Windsor repeated his claims there. However, the Senate inquiry found no evidence to support an adverse finding against John Anderson or Sandy Macdonald. Furthermore, the committee report said this:

There were … issues identified during the hearing that were not explained to the complete satisfaction of the Committee and which go to the credibility of some of the evidence given by Mr Windsor …

So Mr Windsor's allegations were dismissed by the Australian Federal Police, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by the Senate inquiry that he wanted—dismissed by all of them.

But here he goes again, nine years later, still harping back to his 2004 allegations. And, once again, he is trying to gain media attention with rumour and innuendo. This time the target is Barnaby Joyce, who is contesting the seat of New England against Mr Windsor. It is easy to understand why Mr Windsor would attack Barnaby Joyce this way, hoping if he throws enough mud some will stick. Mr Windsor wants to distract the voters of New England away from focusing on his dismal record. Mr Windsor put Labor and Julia Gillard in power. His support for Labor allowed them to form government three years ago. Everything that this government has imposed on the Australian people since then Mr Windsor is partly to blame for. If the voters of New England had wanted the Labor Party to run Australia, they would have voted that way. They did not. But Labor is what they got, thanks to Mr Windsor.

Mr Windsor turned out to be, effectively, the Independent-Labor member for New England. And he has served Labor well. They have been able to count on his vote, time and time again, supporting the Labor government and the Greens as they introduced the carbon tax, ran up a national debt heading for $300 billion, caused chaos in cattle markets throughout Australia by banning the live trade to Indonesia and lost control of our borders. Mr Windsor helped create the carbon tax, and last year he told an ABC interviewer that he was 'proud' of it. Who can forget the image of Julia Gillard, Bob Brown and Tony Windsor standing on the steps of Parliament House, all smiles, announcing they had agreed on how to impose a carbon tax? Time and again, Mr Windsor has backed Labor and the Greens in deals that have hurt people in regional and rural Australia, not just in his electorate of New England but throughout the country. He has voted against the timber industry. He has voted against the fishing industry. He has supported wind farms across the countryside. He has consistently let down rural and regional Australia in supporting Labor and the Greens.

In the end, it comes down to a question of character. Mr Windsor lacks character. He has abused the great privileges we parliamentarians are given to speak freely. As I said, with those privileges comes great responsibility. But Mr Windsor has not behaved responsibly. Once again, in the run-up to the September election—as he has done before—Mr Windsor has raised rumour and innuendo to try to damage a political opponent or someone he simply dislikes, this time Barnaby Joyce. With his attack on Barnaby Joyce, Mr Windsor has demonstrated that he continues to be someone who uses grubby personal attacks, without a shred of evidence, against his opponents. The people of New England deserve better.