Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move matter of privilege notice of motion No. 1:

That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges:

(a)

whether any false or misleading evidence was given to the Economics Legislation Committee at its hearing on 19 June 2009; and

(b)

whether there was any improper interference with the proceedings of the committee, or any misleading of the committee, by the use of a false document as a basis for questioning of a witness;

and whether any contempt was committed in that regard.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On this motion I have concerns about subparagraph (b) given that it makes specific reference to the use of a false document as a basis for questioning a witness. Given that this matter is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Auditor-General and an investigation by the Federal Police, I have some real concerns about this particular matter being referred to the Privileges Committee at this time. I seek your guidance, Mr President, as to whether I may seek leave to move an amendment to delete subparagraph (b) of this particular motion.

Leave not granted.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I was going to speak on the substantive motion. However, unfortunately, with chamber management the way it is this morning I missed that opportunity. If I can confine my remarks—I may seek an extension—very briefly, it is a short matter and I do not want to put a lot on record about it other than that we are seeking to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. In answer to Senator Xenophon, we understand that this matter has already been referred by Senator Heffernan in another way to the Privileges Committee for it to be dealt with.

There is a strong precedent for this matter to normally be referred to the Privileges Committee. It is usual for that to be granted to the senator moving the matter to go to privilege. It is a rare occurrence—in fact, I can only think of one occurrence where it has been denied—for the matter not to be referred to the Privileges Committee. The reasons are that parliamentary privilege is an ancient and important protection that allows the parliament the ability to operate freely and inquire into what it must. It also exists to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary process by ensuring that parliamentarians and witnesses to parliamentary committees are free to speak and are free from concern. However, parliamentary privilege is just that. It is a privilege that allows us to do our job but it ought not to be abused. The Privileges Committee of each house exists both to guard against the breach of parliamentary privilege and to protect against its abuse.

Over the past week, unfortunately, we have seen the most extraordinary series of events that go right to the heart of parliamentary privilege. We have seen allegations of a false Commonwealth document—a forgery it appears, in fact—used to dupe a Senate committee. We have seen testimony given, perhaps based on the same document, that is highly questionable. (Time expired)

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—There is only one thing that Senator Ludwig just said with which we agree, and that is that it is rare to deny or oppose a reference to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. But in this case the opposition very strongly opposes this reference. We believe the government has completely misunderstood the motivation of Senator Heffernan. I speak honestly here and I hope that we will be dealt with in good faith.

Senator Heffernan, acting as a backbench senator, was concerned about the treatment that a witness to the Economics Legislation Committee received last week after he gave his evidence. If you read Senator Heffernan’s motion it says:

Whether any adverse action was taken against Mr Godwin Grech in consequence of his evidence before the Economics Legislation Committee ...

This is not directed at government senators in any way whatsoever. Senator Heffernan, of his own volition, was concerned about the treatment of a witness after he gave his evidence. The government seems to have interpreted Senator Heffernan’s motion as directed at government senators, and here we have a tit-for-tat motion designed to attack Senator Abetz because of his quite genuine and proper endeavours to establish the veracity of evidence given to that committee and information to his hand.

It would be quite extraordinary for a committee of privileges to be examining the basis upon which a senator was seeking to establish the veracity of evidence before them, and the government’s motion completely misunderstands and misrepresents the motivation that Senator Heffernan had in his reference, which was quite properly about the treatment of a witness after he gave his evidence. Therefore, we are very strongly opposed to this reference and we hope the Senate will join us in opposing it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Senator Minchin is quite right that matters that go to privilege are quite extraordinary. They are not ordinary matters and that is why the Privileges Committee is there. The events of the last couple of weeks, and events unknown which led up to them, are in that category of quite extraordinary. Senator Heffernan brought in a motion to have the matter in part referred to the Privileges Committee, and the Greens supported that.

We have great faith in the Privileges Committee and its record. I have been repeatedly surprised and admiring of the work of the Privileges Committee. It is a committee which time and again brings down a considered, sensible and largely unarguable finding, though we do have robust debates in here as a result of it.

This motion put forward by Senator Ludwig ought to go as it is to the Privileges Committee for consideration and there ought not be political positions taken on it. I do not think any of us should be concerned that the Privileges Committee be confined to any particular persons or exclude any particular persons, including Senators. Therefore, the Privileges Committee should not be denied the opportunity to look at the matter in the terms that Senator Ludwig has put forward.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This is an important issue, but I think this chamber should be involved with policy and not playing politics. I have a feeling I smell a rat with this one. Seriously, there is politics being played.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A forged document in a Senate committee and you don’t think it’s serious.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am sorry; I believe there is politics being played. Basically, you should not turn Senate committee hearings into forums for playing politics. I think that this motion is founded on the basis of presuming guilt before there is actually any basis for it. So I make it clear that I will not be supporting this particular reference.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thought it was quite extraordinary that Senator Wong was not given an opportunity to speak. I take particular issue with that and I wish to register my protest.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I will not reflect on that vote, but I want to have it noted that I treat the matter of the exclusion of the purview of the Privileges Committee to senators—that is, to any of us, if that is what we have seen—as a very serious matter. We are not, in access to the Privileges Committee, above other citizens. We are not a law unto ourselves—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I know Senator Brown started by saying he is not reflecting on the vote that has just been had but I ask you to really consider whether that is reflecting on the vote.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in order, Senator Brown. Continue, but I advise you not to reflect on the vote.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nor would I. That is why I said at the outset that I would not. However, we must not be gagged from debating the seriousness of any ability of the Senate to protect senators from the reach of the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee is there to defend the Senate itself. We know that from time to time citizens complain about the behaviour or the statements of senators in here. Very often the Privileges Committee looks at that and rules in their favour without asking the senator before the Privileges Committee.

There are very serious matters being debated in the public arena at the moment. I am concerned that the Senate not be put in the position of appearing to be shepherding, defending or protecting any of our number as against the rights of other citizens. I believe that it must be put on the record that senators should not use their numbers to protect themselves from a matter being referred to the Privileges Committee.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am not reflecting on the vote, but I indicate in relation to the comments I made about Senator Wong not being able to have an opportunity to speak that Senator Minchin did explain to me his understanding of how the order of business was going to be conducted; so I accept that it was not an act of capriciousness on the part of the opposition.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, no.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I accept what Senator Minchin said on his word. Certainly, I did not think it was a good look for Senator Wong not to have an opportunity to make a short statement.