Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I present the 163rd report of the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, which is a preliminary report on the committee's inquiry into the status of documents seized under search warrant.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation at paragraph 1.41 of the report.

The committee makes this preliminary report to the Senate on the disposition of documents seized under search warrants. While the Australian Federal Police can seek to execute search warrants in the premises of members or where privileges may be involved, they are required to follow the national guideline which allows members to make claims of parliamentary privilege where they consider materials seized under warrant. Senators will be aware that former Senator Conroy made a claim of privilege over documents seized in the execution of search warrants at his Melbourne office and at the residence of one of his staff members in May this year and in the execution of a third warrant at Parliament House in August.

The member for Blaxland, the Hon. Jason Clare, also made a claim of privilege in the House of Representatives over material seized at Parliament House. The House of Representatives today adopted a motion upholding Mr Clare's claim, resolving that documents be returned to him and withheld from the Australian Federal Police investigation. The House privileges committee report on the matter, which was tabled on Monday, relies on a presumption that the documents connected to a member's portfolio responsibilities are likely to be proceedings in parliament and, accordingly, protected by privilege. Absent any evidence to disturb that presumption, it appears the House committee and the House itself readily accepted and upheld the claim of privilege.

For reasons outlined in the report that I have just tabled, the Senate committee has chosen to take a different approach. The committee has started gathering information about the privilege claim and considers it appropriate to properly consider that information. The committee also has before it a contempt inquiry arising from the execution of the warrants, which will be better informed by further consideration of this matter. The underlying facts of the contempt inquiry also raised concerns that the guideline does not sufficiently protect members' information.

In this vein, this week the committee received a new reference about the adequacy of parliamentary privilege as a protection for parliamentary material against the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Again, further consideration of the current matter will better inform the inquiry.

Finally, and of particular concern to the committee, evidence provided by the Australian Federal Police as background to its inquiry indicates that the Australian Federal Police investigation of the matter initially involved pre-warrant inquiries to departments and private entities about members' offices and their staff. The evidence to the committee indicated that there are no particular protocols applying in relation to making and responding to such inquiries, so the sorts of protections required in the execution of search warrants may be entirely absent here. Again, these matters will be investigated as part of the matter referred this week.

The motion I have moved would provide the committee with access to the documents currently in the custody of the Clerk and enable the committee to take the next steps in the inquiry which are set out in the report. I commend the report and the motion to the Senate.