Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the Committee of Privileges report on allegations of documents fraudulently and inaccurately written and issued in a member’s name.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—On 10 August 2005, the House referred to the committee whether two incidents, where alleged fraudulent and inaccurate documents purportedly from the member for Eden-Monaro, the Hon. Gary Nairn, were distributed to media outlets and to a recipient of government funding in his electorate, constituted contempts. In both incidents it involved documents dated 1 April 2005, which were carefully fabricated to make it appear as though they had been sent by Mr Nairn. The committee details these incidents in its report. Mr Nairn had not been responsible for preparing and sending either document. As the committee became aware that the Australian Federal Police was conducting an investigation of these incidents it delayed its inquiry until the AFP had concluded its investigation. Subsequently, the committee became aware of three further incidents of correspondence sent on 1 April 2006, apparently on the letterhead of the member for Eden-Monaro and with his signature. One of these letters was sent to the secretary of the Committee of Privileges.

The AFP again investigated these incidents. While the AFP was able to identify a suspect and prepared a brief of evidence for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the matter did not proceed to prosecution. However, the AFP advised the committee that the evidence it had collected on the case established a clear and manifest connection of Ms Harriett Swift, a resident of the South Coast of New South Wales, to the preparation and distribution of the documents that were the subject of the inquiry. When Ms Swift appeared before the committee, she did not deny this evidence and, in response to a specific question, she admitted that she was responsible for the preparation and distribution of the document.

For a matter to constitute a contempt, conduct must amount to, or be intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member. The act of misusing the letterhead and signature of a member of parliament potentially is a criminal offence, although that would depend on the particular circumstances. In this case the matter did not proceed to prosecution. The issue for the committee was not whether the misuse itself was illegal or improper, but whether the misuse resulted in an improper interference in Mr Nairn performing his duties as a member.

Communicating with constituents, including communication with the local media, is an important part of the duties of a member, and members rightly rely on this communication being seen as honest and being free from interference. In preparing and distributing the press release and letters to make it appear as though they had been sent by Mr Nairn, Ms Swift stated her intention was to draw attention to the issue of logging in south-east New South Wales forests by the use of an April Fools’ Day joke.

However, the test as to whether a matter amounts to a contempt as provided in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act does not just go to the intention of the conduct but also to whether it amounts, or is likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free performance by a member of his or her duties. Evidence from Mr Nairn shows that there was interference with his communication with his constituents and such interference could be expected as a likely outcome of such misuse.

The committee considers the misuse of a member’s letterhead and signature, regardless of the specific intentions, would either amount to, or be likely to amount to, an interference with a member’s ability to communicate freely and honestly with his or her constituents. The committee also considers that such interference in these circumstances, when there is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent a member by fabricating a letterhead and signature, is improper and constitutes a contempt of the House.

The committee finds that Ms Harriett Swift, on five occasions in 2005 and 2006, deliberately misrepresented the Hon. Gary Nairn MP by producing and distributing documents that fabricated Mr Nairn’s letterhead and signature to make it appear that the documents were prepared and sent by Mr Nairn. The committee finds Ms Swift guilty of a contempt of the House in that she has undertaken conduct which amounts to an improper interference in the free performance by Mr Nairn of his duties as a member.

The imposition of a punishment for a contempt of the House is a matter for the House, but the committee wishes to give guidance to the House about an appropriate penalty in these circumstances. The committee considers that the contempt committed by Ms Swift is a very serious matter, although it notes that, in the circumstances, none of the incidents resulted in significant damage to Mr Nairn or any other person. In light of this, the committee considers that an appropriate penalty would be for the House to reprimand Ms Swift for her conduct. Any further such conduct by Ms Swift could give rise to more serious consequences.

The committee recommends that the House: (1) find Ms Swift guilty of a contempt of the House in that she undertook conduct that amounted to an improper interference with the free performance by Mr Nairn of his duties as a member; and (2) reprimand Ms Swift for her conduct.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation in and commitment to what has been a very lengthy and protracted process. I would like to thank the members for Lingiari, Chisholm, Makin, Canberra, Gilmore, Cowper, Fraser, Banks, Sydney, Canning, Chifley and Fairfax. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat—the secretary, Mr David Elder, the research officer, Claressa Surtees, and the administration officer, Laura Gillies—for their help and advice.