Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the 183rd report of the Committee of Privileges regarding a possible obstruction of the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I move:

That recommendation 2 of the report be adopted.

The report relates to the committee's inquiry into whether Senator Thorpe's—and I acknowledge Senator Thorpe's presence in the chamber—failure to declare a relationship with Mr Dean Martin to the joint committee amounted to an improper interference with the committee's work. More specifically, the Senate required the Privileges Committee to consider:

… whether Senator Thorpe's failure to declare the relationship:

(a) obstructed the work of the Joint Committee … ;

(b) if so, whether this amounted to an improper interference with the work of the committee; and

(c) whether any contempt was committed in this regard.

The media reports which prompted this inquiry suggested Mr Martin is a former member of an outlaw motorcycle gang and that the joint committee was conducting an inquiry or held briefings which examined matters relating to such gangs. In considering whether Senator Thorpe's failure to declare the relationship obstructed the work of the joint committee, the Privileges Committee examined not just the specific impact of her failure to declare the personal relationship, but also whether there was a wider impact on the operation of the joint committee. The committee sought and considered submissions from Senator Thorpe and the joint committee.

This matter relates to alleged conduct which, if proven, could only be addressed by the Senate exercising its power to determine and punish contempts. Media coverage of this matter was clearly intended to suggest that Senator Thorpe had utilised her membership of the joint committee to further the interests of an outlaw motorcycle gang. A senator using his or her position on a committee to access sensitive information from law enforcement agencies in order to further the interests of a criminal organisation would, of course, be amongst the most serious possible contempts. To the extent that it was conduct forming part of the proceedings of parliament, it could only be sanctioned by the Senate. However, the evidence to the Privileges Committee demonstrates that the media coverage of this matter was inaccurate in some important respects. In particular, the implication that Senator Thorpe used her position inappropriately or even had access to information of the type speculated about in the media coverage is not borne out.

The joint committee advised that it had no evidence that Senator Thorpe had declared a possible conflict of interest in relation to a personal relationship. Senator Thorpe accepted in her submission that she should have declared this possible conflict. The committee agrees that Senator Thorpe should have declared her relationship as a potential conflict of interest with her work on the joint committee. It was possible that she would receive sensitive material of interest to outlaw motorcycle gangs through her work on the committee; however, on the basis of evidence it has received, the committee is satisfied that no disclosure of such material has occurred and that the operations of the joint committee have not been impeded. The committee therefore concludes that a contempt should not be found in relation to the matters referred to.

The committee also wishes to make some recommendations concerning the strengthening of the process for declaring conflicts of interest. The committee urges all senators to exercise caution in relation to possible conflicts of interest as well as the perception that their personal relationships may conflict with their official duties. All senators should take a scrupulous approach to such matters. Where there is any doubt, they should seek the advice of colleagues or of the Clerk. Senators must be aware of their responsibilities to perform their roles in the public interest, to declare any possible conflicts, and to comply with the standing orders by not sitting on a committee where they have a conflict of interest. Transparency in relation to such matters serves to resolve most issues and is critical to maintaining the confidence of submitters and witnesses in the integrity of committee proceedings. To support a more consistent approach on these matters, the committee has recommended that declarations of any conflict of interest should be a standard agenda item at all private meetings of all committees.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their considered approach to this matter. I commend the report to the Senate, and I do wish to say that the manner in which the Privileges Committee has dealt with this has been very much in the interests of the Senate as a whole. It is not just a bipartisan committee; it is actually a nonpartisan committee. Certainly Senator O'Neill as the deputy chair—I know she has made this reflection on a previous chair, Senator Abetz—has said that the operation of this committee for a long time has been nonpartisan. I certainly hope, and it is my intention as chair, that it will stay that way. Once again, I commend the report to the Senate.