Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brockman, for reading out the findings of the Privileges Committee. Over months and months, my family and my children have had to wait with bated breath about the process, the outcome and the transparency in this whole situation. I was basically mauled by the media in that time. I had no relationship with that person. I was given legal advice by the Greens lawyer that I had to say that I dated this person. I got a call from that person, who said, 'Did we date?' We kissed once at a rally. We kissed once at a rally on 26 January. I had no idea who this person was, or his background. My legal advice was to say I dated this person. I got mauled by all of you. I got mauled by the media. Senator whatever-your-name-is, down the front with the big smile on your face—Holly Hughes—you were one of them. I am sick of being torn down by—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My disabled son didn't appreciate your comment, either.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a disabled child in my family, too.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you shouldn't have said those comments then.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me. This is not about disability. This is about respect and shutting your mouth when I am speaking.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always about you!

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sick of the racism.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask her to withdraw the disparaging comments she just directed towards me. She's not to repeat it in the withdrawal. You should have enough practice withdrawing things by now.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to rule on the point of order. Senator Thorpe, please withdraw the remarks and avoid repeating them.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I got mauled by the media. I got mauled by all of you in here for something I did not do. You all had fun. All the cartoons of me riding Harleys, all the disgusting comments I got on my social media and the comments I got from the media—you all demonised me, and today I have been cleared of any wrongdoing. I didn't come to this place to do wrong by the committees I sit on. I take that job very, very seriously. I respect all of those members of any committee that I sit on in this place.

To think, all you people thought that I had been running off with some bikie gang, telling secrets about what goes on in this place. What kind of person do you think I am? I think I deserve an apology from the leader of the Greens, for one, because I lost my position as well. For what? For a kiss on invasion day with some black man at a rally who happened to be an ex-biker. I didn't ask for his resume!

I'm glad. Thank you to the privileges committee for looking hard into this situation. For the record: I put myself up to the privileges committee. I wanted them to investigate me because I knew I had done nothing wrong, but my family and my community were hurting from the racism that I copped. Social media. Media. Thank you very much. I'll end my comments there.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRES IDENT: I remind senators to direct their comments through the chair.

Question agreed to.

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

I present the 184th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Mr Jason Riley. I move:

That the report be adopted.

This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified.

On 15 December 2022, the President received a submission from Mr Jason Riley relating to a speech made by Senator McMahon in the Senate on 30 March 2022. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Mr Riley's response be incorporated into Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of the statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly—

Appendix 1

Mr. Jason Riley

Pursuant to Resolution 5(7)(b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988

Reply to comments by Senator Sam McMahon

(30 March 2022)

1. In the lead up to the Federal election of 2022 I became aware of statements Sam McMahon made in her valedictorian speech to Parliament, in which she identified me by name in connection to a number of issues she said she experienced during her time as a Parliamentarian.

2. The first comment made by Sam McMahon reflected upon her decision to resign from her Party, as extracted from the relevant Hansard, "My reason to resign was driven entirely by my former staff member, Jason Rileywho did abuse and terrorise my office, including myself"

Any and all suggestions I did "abuse and terrorise" former Senator Sam McMahon's office, or Sam McMahon, herself, are completely false, defamatory and without foundation. Available to her throughout the period I was employed by her, and since, were numerous avenues to address issues of staff exhibiting such conduct, including immediate dismissal. Sam McMahon did not avail herself of those remediations.

3. Sam McMahon went on to say, "…and the party's decision to place him into a position on their central council…"

At the time Sam McMahon alleges this decision was taken, she herself was a member of both the CLP Management Committee and Central Council, however, the Country Liberal Party made no such decision. Furthermore, I neither sought, nor was appointed, any position on the Central Council. In its entirety, the abovementioned statement by Sam McMahon is a prevarication.

4. The final part of the comment Sam McMahon made was, "To have to sit in meetings with such a person was a very stressful experience…".

The only meeting I participated in with Sam McMahon at that point was the Country Liberal Party Central Council meeting, attended by approximately 70 people. I did not participate in any meetings with her subsequent to that event. Prior to that event, I had not participated in a meeting with Sam McMahon for more than two and a half years. In the context of the paragraph from which this comment is extracted, Sam McMahon's words are once again a mix of mistruths and fabrications.

5. Sam McMahon's false statements in her speech have had a direct impact on my wellbeing and future employment opportunities, a condition that continues to today.

6. Immediately following Sam McMahon making these comments about me, she embarked on a media campaign, spanning multiple radio and television stations, to discuss her comments made under Parliamentary privilege, with particular focus on the comments she made about me. That practice was detrimental to my character and reputation. Again, I will draw your attention to the fact Sam McMahon had access to a wide range of remediation options and services to deal with the issues she alleges, over an extended period of time, yet she failed to employ any, preferring instead to make her statements under Parliamentary privilege.

7. I formally request my remarks contained herein are entered into Hansard to form a response to the false and misleading statements Sam McMahon made about me.

While employed by Sam McMahon I did not, in any way or at any time, conduct myself in a manner that could be characterized to "abuse and terrorise" either her or other staff.

I am in no way responsible for Sam McMahon's demise with her Party, nor her decision to resign from her Party.

Should the members of the Privileges Committee require, I stand ready to provide details of witnesses who have agreed to speak on the matters raised by Sam McMahon in her speech to Parliament and to verify my statements made here-in. In each instance, those people can offer first hand, direct evidence.

Regards,

Jason Riley

10 January 2022