Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There is a Labor majority, Senator, as has always been the case—a government majority and a non-government chair, but the chair of the committee is a frontbench opposition senator. So the charge is that somehow, by inviting or requiring Senator Brandis to head an investigation into this matter, we are conducting a witch-hunt. What arrant nonsense. What we are doing is asking the appropriate body to inquire into a very serious matter, a matter considered serious by all in this parliament. This really does serve as a challenge to the Liberal and National parties. There is a question as to whether they can detach themselves from what they see as their partisan political interests, or their fear of what might occur after a proper examination of this issue, and act responsibly as senators and members of this parliament. You cannot deny the seriousness of this issue. You cannot deny that there are questions of privilege at stake.

We have had the most extraordinary event of misleading evidence, of reference to false documents, of meetings between senior public servants and senators participating in the inquiry, where the nature of the questions and the answers were discussed. Whoever is at fault, whoever initiated these things is a question for the Privileges Committee to examine. I make no comment on it, but we have serious disagreement between key players and we have proof that at the heart of these allegations is a false document. We know that this was designed to bring down a Prime Minister of this country. This is as serious as it gets, in my view, in terms of abuse of Senate practice and procedures. It is absolutely a matter that ought to go to the Privileges Committee. If the opposition thought that Senator Heffernan’s reference—one which went to whether or not there had been any discrimination against Mr Grech following his evidence—was serious enough to be supported, I ask them: how can they now say that these matters are not serious enough? They cannot, because clearly they are serious enough. I urge them to take the responsible action and support this motion.

I thank the Greens and Senator Xenophon for their support when we attempted to do this before. They rightly saw that this is an issue the Senate has to deal with. In the last couple of days I have spoken to Senator Fielding about this—he did not vote with us on the previous occasion. I would urge him to do so on this occasion. While there was a lot of evidence about at the time, there is no doubt that more evidence has come to light and there has been more focus on the issues at stake. Since the Auditor-General’s report, both Mr Turnbull and Mr Abetz have made statements which clarify some of the issues and present their side of the story. Despite his position last time, I would urge Senator Fielding to support this motion.

I have indicated that I will not speak at length to the next motion, which Senator Fielding proposes. The government will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s motion. We think an attempt to link Senator Conroy and some incident that occurred back in October 2008 is ridiculous. An incident 10 months ago, on which no action and no commentary has been made, is now sought to be rolled in to a serious reference on matters relating to the OzCar inquiry. Clearly, in my view, it is a nonsense. If concerns existed about what occurred at the economics committee between Senator Conroy and Senator Cameron, people had 10 months to raise concerns, yet no concerns were raised—because at the heart of the suggestion about Senator Conroy’s action is a suggestion that he might have been organising a dorothy dixer. If we are going to take action against everyone who participates in the organisation or delivery of an answer to a dorothy dixer in this parliament, there will not be many of us left. It is clearly ridiculous. It is clearly of a very different order to suggest that somehow these events are linked or that the behaviour or issues at stake are similar—that is clearly not right.

We had an incident today in the Senate where Senator Cormann wanted a serious answer to a serious question, where he gave notice to Senator Ludwig, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—perfectly appropriate. Senators on the crossbenches have done it to ensure that the minister is aware of the issues that they want an answer to. To suggest that somehow what we colloquially refer to as the asking of a dorothy dixer is in some way comparable or related to the OzCar matter and the seriousness of the issues at stake is just unable to be supported. There is no logic to that. I will not allow Senator Conroy’s name to be besmirched by having him dragged into this.

What the Senate has before it now is a proper, serious reference going to the protection of Senate privilege. We are asking, like we did with Senator Heffernan’s motion, that we refer matters of concern that arose out of that economics committee hearing to the Privileges Committee to inquire into, to resolve what occurred and to decide whether any action is required by the Senate. That is normal, appropriate, proper Senate practice. That is what I seek to do today and that is what I seek the Senate’s support on. I think to do otherwise effectively ends the practice of upholding Senate privilege in this country. If we do not refer this matter, if we do not take this matter seriously, where will the high bar be? What will you have to do to warrant a reference to the Privileges Committee? What could possibly be more serious, short of some form of violence or murder?

This is a matter where there was proof of false documentation being used. There was an attempt to bring down the Prime Minister of the country. We know there were discussions with witnesses about the evidence they were to lead and the answers they were to give and organisation around those matters. That is as serious as it gets, in my view, and it is a matter that the Senate ought to deal with. I am sure the Senate Privileges Committee, under Senator Brandis, can deal with that properly, adequately and with professionalism. I would hope that the Liberal Party would support him in doing that. I know the process will not work if the Liberal Party sets out to destroy it. This Senate works on cooperation. This Senate works on proper behaviour by all senators. We know how easy it is to overturn the processes of the Senate. One senator can do it, let alone a whole opposition. So this is, in my view, an issue that goes to the leadership of the Liberal and National parties. Whether this is passed not, the position they take reflects, I think, a very partisan view that they will regret.

What we should see is the appropriate reference of this to the Privileges Committee, an upholding of the practices and processes which we have all relied on and will continue to need to rely on if we are to function appropriately. I urge the opposition to support the motion and to commit themselves to an appropriate inquiry, led by their own Senator Brandis, which will look at these issues seriously and report back to the Senate. I hope the Privileges Committee can do its work in the same professional manner that it always has done. I urge the Senate to support the motion.