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

The Senate has before it two motions to refer matters to the Privileges Committee concerning an inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into the OzCar legislation on 19 June. I place on record the strong opposition of the coalition to either reference proceeding. I give notice that the coalition will be voting against the references of both Senator Evans and Senator Fielding. We are not persuaded by the case put by Senator Evans this afternoon, which, while valiantly attempting to rise above base party politics, cannot disguise that from the point of view of the Labor Party this is nothing more than an attempt to squeeze the lemon dry in relation to the OzCar matter for base partisan purposes. It is, at the end of the day, nothing more than an abuse of the Privileges Committee of this Senate to pursue a partisan agenda by the Labor Party to get Senator Abetz. It is nothing more or less than that.

I would like to detail the specific reasons why the coalition is opposed to these two references that we have before us today. I note, as Senator Evans has done, that the Privileges Committee already has before it a reference in relation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s hearing on 19 June. That was a motion brought independently to the Senate by Senator Heffernan, unanimously supported by the Senate, in relation to what he saw—and I think the Senate thought so too—as the maltreatment of a witness before a Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing, to wit, Mr Grech. That is the basis upon which the committee thought this matter should be referred. That was, as I said, a matter brought by Senator Heffernan of his own volition but supported by the parliament.

I think it was appropriate, because what we are dealing with in relation to privilege is the issue of undue influence being placed upon a witness or, by external forces, upon a senator in the conduct of their activities. These are serious matters, as Senator Evans properly said. It is appropriate that, if a witness like Mr Grech has been interfered with, the matter be investigated. Senator Heffernan has provided further evidence of the treatment of Mr Grech to the President in relation to the inquiry already before the Privileges Committee. It is our position that that inquiry should be allowed to run its course, in pursuit of what is the proper role of the Privileges Committee, to see if there has been any interference improperly exercised upon a witness to a Senate committee. The references of Senator Evans and Senator Fielding do not by any stretch of the imagination fit that criterion.

Further to that first point, we state that there has been no prima facie case made to the Senate to warrant any further reference of this matter. I have to say that it is my understanding—and, I think, a proper one—that Privileges Committee inquiries should be based upon specific allegations in relation to specific acts that, it is contended, could amount to contempt. That is not met in relation to either of these references. Both are drawn up so broadly as to be nothing more than fishing expeditions. It is not appropriate for the Privileges Committee to embark upon a fishing expedition into whether anything occurred in any particular hearing that might possibly constitute contempt. I do not see how the Privileges Committee can possibly operate unless there is a very specific act cited to which the committee is referred and then asked to inquire into to see whether it constitutes a matter of privilege. That should then form the body of a recommendation to the Senate.

I remind the Senate of the following statement in Odgers’:

The record ... shows that the Senate’s investigation ofprivilege matters has been confined to serious matters potentially involving significant obstruction of the Senate, its committees or senators.

The Privileges Committee ... regards a culpable intention on the part of the person concerned as essential for the establishment of a contempt.

It is serious, as Senator Evans properly said, but no evidence has been adduced today that there is any specific act that comes close to meeting the prima facie requirement placed upon the Senate before it makes a reference to the Privileges Committee. It simply does not add up and we should not be setting the Privileges Committee on a fishing expedition of this kind.

Thirdly, I would state on our behalf that both Mr Turnbull and Senator Eric Abetz, who are the objects of this partisan attempt by the Labor Party to abuse the Privileges Committee, have given a joint and full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the evidence given by Mr Godwin Grech to that Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June. They have both subjected themselves to a full press conference. They have both detailed exactly what occurred.

Senator Abetz, to his great credit, also delivered a full and complete statement to this Senate at the earliest opportunity setting out the facts on this matter. May I say to this Senate that, as far as the whole coalition is concerned, Senator Abetz has acted with complete integrity in relation to this matter and he has at all times acted in the honest belief in the accuracy of the evidence with which he was being presented. The coalition stands full square behind Senator Abetz and in support of his actions in relation to this matter and we will not cooperate in a partisan attempt by the Labor Party to get Senator Abetz.

Senator Abetz operated, as I said, in the honest belief that the evidence he was being presented with to warrant an inquiry by the economics committee into the OzCar matter was factual evidence. He had no reason at all to believe that there was anything improper about the evidence being presented to him. That was the statement made by Mr Grech, the man who was actually in charge of this OzCar scheme and a man who, to this day, continues to contend that in fact there was contact between the Prime Minister’s office and himself in relation to this matter.

In our view, there is absolutely nothing in anything that Mr Turnbull or Senator Abetz has said to warrant so serious a move as to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Indeed the partisan nature of this is revealed in the letter by Senator Evans to the President where he asserts ‘an agreement between Mr Turnbull, a senator and a witness to create an inquiry’. We know what this is all about. This is specifically designed by the Labor Party to have a go at the current Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Frankly, the moralising from the ALP on this matter is nauseating.

As someone who was a minister for 10 years, and therefore must have attended some 30 hearings of estimates in my time as a minister, it was obvious to me, on almost all those occasions, that the Labor senators were in receipt of material leaked from the Public Service to enable them to conduct inquiries and ask questions at Senate estimates. I defy the Labor Party to deny that occurred. Of course it occurred. Of course we were conscious that that occurred. I never ceased to be amazed by the sorts of information which Labor senators seemed to have to hand and, as a minister, was conscious that that information could only have come from leaks from the Public Service. So we on this side will not subject ourselves to the moralising from the Labor Party on this matter.

Fourthly, I want to note that the suggestion inherent in these motions, that somehow senators should not talk to witnesses or discuss their evidence prior to committee hearings, is idiotic. The Clerk has given a variety of opinions on this matter, not all of which we would necessarily agree with—they are just his personal opinions—but he does state quite clearly in his letter to me of 5 August on this matter:

There is nothing to prevent a senator or any other person discussing a witness’s evidence with the witness before a hearing.

We say that is absolutely correct and any other interpretation would make the Senate and the Senate committee system completely and utterly unworkable. This place could not function if there were not the opportunity for citizens of this country to come to senators to discuss matters they thought were serious enough to warrant inquiry at Senate committees—to discuss with senators those matters, lines of questioning and their knowledge of the matters before them to enable questions to be asked at Senate committee hearings.

Again, as I say, as someone who was a minister for 10 years, there was always, before every one of the 30 estimates I appeared at as a minister, a long session with Public Service officials in which I was involved. In those sessions there would be a healthy and vigorous discussion with the Public Service officials, prior to the estimates hearings, of the sorts of questions that we might expect from senators appearing at those hearings, the sorts of answers Public Service officials might give and the sorts of answers that I as a minister might give. Of course that goes on. We know that public officials get professional training in how to handle questions at estimates, for goodness sake. We know that happens under this government—and so it should. There is no other way that this system can work. I urge the Senate to understand the Pandora’s box that it may be opening if it pursues this path of inquiry, through what we call an abuse of the Senate Privileges Committee.

I say, finally, that this is an abuse of the Privileges Committee. The motion seeks to have a committee which is controlled by the Labor Party—the Privileges Committee has a four to three majority in favour of the Labor Party—conduct what we continue to assert is nothing more than an attempt to get Senator Abetz. I find that quite objectionable.

Senator Abetz has quite honestly said that he was, in a sense, a victim of something that could happen to any one of us, where a very credible witness comes to a senator and says, ‘I have evidence which is of a very serious nature going to public administration in this country and I think it is a matter that should be pursued at a committee hearing.’ As Senator Abetz has honestly said, to the extent that anyone should suggest there was any coaching, then indeed the witness in this case, Mr Grech, was coaching Senator Abetz. There is no evidence to the contrary whatsoever and none has been adduced or suggested in this case. Mr Grech came to Senator Abetz, said he had received contact and showed Senator Abetz a document—an email—which was evidence of this contact. A line of questioning was discussed and put to Senator Abetz and that was pursued.

In this case Senator Abetz—and I hope everybody in this chamber would accept the integrity of Senator Abetz—acted in good faith and with great integrity in relation to that matter and had no reason to doubt the evidence that was being put before him. I do agree with Senator Evans that the Privileges Committee has to this point operated in a genuine and apolitical manner. I think that will be put seriously at risk if either of these references is agreed to today and put to that committee. The future functioning of the Privileges Committee could be put seriously at risk and I reject the accusation that there has been some change of position.

It is proper for an opposition to say that they are prepared to consider any matter put before them and to suggest an inquiry by any committee. It would be idiotic and quite irresponsible to just, in a knee-jerk fashion, reject any suggestion of an inquiry by a committee. So, of course, we are prepared to consider it. But we have seen what has been put up and it is quite clear to us that (a) it is a fishing expedition being put before the Privileges Committee and (b) it has only one purpose, and that is to continue a Labor Party attack on the opposition in relation to OzCar and to squeeze the lemon dry rather than the government getting on with the job of governing the country.

If I may use this opportunity to refer to Senator Fielding’s motion, I at least acknowledge that Senator Fielding is trying to bring some balance to this matter. I think he does acknowledge and understand what the Labor Party is trying to do and does want to bring some balance to the matter by referring to the very embarrassing footage that we saw on Channel 7, repeated recently, of Senator Conroy emailing questions to Senator Cameron in an estimates hearing. I have to say that Senator Conroy, whose defence I would not normally leap to with great agility, has in this case been somewhat sloppy but in my view has done nothing at all that would warrant so serious a response as to suggest that it is something that the Privileges Committee should consider. That, with great respect, through you Mr Acting Deputy President to Senator Fielding, is not what the Privileges Committee is about. It is not about pursuing Senator Abetz nor is it about pursuing Senator Conroy for being caught out in this case.

I am happy to confess that in government, of course, we gave Senate government backbenchers questions to ask in Senate estimates. And, of course, that is what the Labor Party does. In many cases it was fairly obvious to everybody where the questions came from. It is certainly not something that should go to a Privileges Committee. All governments do it and all governments will continue to do it. If we are going to get so precious as to suggest that it not go on I think, as Senator Evans quite properly said, ‘Dixers occur in this place every day and notice is given of questions, and that is part and parcel of the way we operate.’

Finally, in the few minutes remaining, I just want to make a point that does need to be put on the record. It would seem that this Privileges Committee inquiry could not be properly conducted or reach any sensible conclusions on these references, were they to proceed, without evidence from the central character in this matter—that is, Mr Godwin Grech. I do not believe that it is possible for the committee to undertake the task that these motions seek to set before it unless he is able to appear and give evidence. Now, as we all know, Mr Grech is not a well man and, in my view, arguably, not in a position to appear before a Privileges Committee. I do not believe, therefore, that this matter can genuinely proceed, and I think that is in the knowledge of everyone involved. I would ask senators to bear that in mind when they consider how they vote on this matter, because I simply do not see how it can proceed in his absence. I would hope there is no suggestion of him being compelled; I think we all understand his condition.

I would also say in conclusion that I think if, indeed, senators have issues about the conduct of committees—and I note and respect the point made by Senator Brown about the issue of whether or not a committee should be advised if there has been any contact between particular senators and witnesses prior to a meeting; that is a matter that perhaps should be considered—the proper place for those sorts of matters to be considered is the Procedures Committee of the Senate. There may well be issues that arise out of this matter, like the one Senator Brown refers to, that the Procedures Committee should consider. We in the opposition would be quite willing for the Procedures Committee to consider issues arising out of this as to how these committees operate, but I do not believe that anything approaching the seriousness that would warrant a Privileges Committee inquiry has been raised by anyone either in this chamber or in the public arena. On that basis I urge the Senate not to support either of these references.