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

As I understand the amendment moved by Senator Fielding, which I have only just seen, it seeks to add to the reference the question which he colourfully describes as the ‘Conroy laptop affair’. That is a new one on me and I think it really is a bit of hyperbole. That is not a position that we will accept, so we will not be supporting the amendment. As I have made clear in the chamber and to Senator Abetz, I think to link these two events is to do a gross injustice to Senator Conroy, to confuse matters and to not treat the OzCar reference with the seriousness it deserves. I understand that Senator Fielding is seeking to be even-handed, but I think this is quite a different matter.

Senator Minchin made a very sensible point in suggesting to Senator Brown that the matters he raised might properly go to the Procedures Committee. Quite frankly, I think your issues, Senator Fielding, as I suggested to you earlier today, might well be referred to the Procedures Committee. What you are effectively saying is what the Clerk is effectively saying—and, to be fair to the Clerk, he has been consistent on this over many years—and that is that he does not like dorothy dixers and he thinks they are a perversion, if you like, of the Senate and proper processes. That has been his position. He has provided that advice in different forms for many years to many of us. I fundamentally disagree with that, and I do not put the question of whether dorothy dixers are appropriate or not in the same class as the concerns that I and others have about the OzCar matter.

I do not think anybody else in the chamber thinks that dorothy dixers—whether they are arranged by the opposition, organised by the government, asked in the Senate or asked in a committee—are. You could make a sensible argument about whether they are appropriate and whether we ought to look at changing the practice or restricting it in some way. Effectively, your complaint is against Senator Conroy for organising a government senator to ask a dorothy dixer. You argue that, somehow, that should be treated more seriously in a Senate committee hearing than it is in the Senate itself. You know it happens in the Senate. You, in fact, occasionally do the courtesy of giving us advice about the question you will ask because you want a proper reply. I think they are two very different issues.

Senator Minchin and Senator Joyce sought to argue the opposition’s case. They sought to prejudge the Privileges Committee by saying: ‘Believe Senator Abetz. He’s a good man. There’s no real matter because we have heard from Senator Abetz.’ We say that Senator Abetz may well have told us the whole story from his perspective, but there is still this question about false evidence on whether or not the Senate was mislead by virtue of the actions that occurred. I have acknowledged Senator Abetz’s apology but it is not a question just about whether Senator Abetz is telling the truth. It is about whether or not privilege of the Senate was breached, whether improper activity occurred and whether or not the Senate ought to take some action about those matters.

While the opposition seeks to argue their case here, it is not the appropriate manner in which to deal with this serious matter. I want to make a point in response to Senator Minchin and Senator Fielding. Senator Minchin likes to say: ‘Oh, this is everyday practice. There are always public servants leaking to you; there are always questions organised; there are always discussions with them about leaks and how we are going to arrange it. This is all common-day practice.’ I obviously was very unlucky in opposition—I wished that was occurring. I actually had to do most of the graft myself, and I dream of having this regular contact with ‘Deep Throat’ to provide me with all this information. It could even make being in opposition look attractive again if that were the case! We would be able to have a lot of fun. I found it was more like 99 per cent graft of your own, and I am sure the opposition senators are finding the same. I hope they get lots of practice at it.

Let us be frank: this is qualitatively different. We now have as a finding of fact from the Australian Federal Police that the email that was referred to was false. This was established by the AFP; it was admitted to by key players, Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz. Secondly, we know from the evidence of both of those persons and the public servant, Mr Grech, that he prepared and rehearsed with them his evidence. This was admitted by all three. This is quite a different matter. It raises much more serious issues than questions of dorothy dixers. We actually have admissions and evidence from all three that support that. So we are not arguing about what may or may not be true. These matters have actually happened and all three parties have said they happened. The question therefore for the Privileges Committee to test is: is that a breach of privilege? We are not testing whether it happened or not; we are testing whether or not it is a breach of privilege.

The other argument put forth was that Mr Grech was too unwell to appear. That may be the case. I am not a medical expert, but we seem to have a few around the chamber. It seems to me that that is something best left in the hands of the committee—to make judgments about whether they invite him to appear, whether they invite him just to give written evidence or whether they invite him to give evidence at all. That is a question for the committee; it is a part of their normal operations.

I do not think this attempt to argue the case here is appropriate. It is appropriate that serious matters of breach of privilege have been raised. At one stage I was accused by Senator Minchin of not providing enough detail, and then I was accused by Senator Joyce of having made an outrageous slur. I do not know how I could have done both. What we have referred to the committee in this motion is a very serious issue done in a calm and fair way to analyse whether or not serious breaches of privilege of the Senate occurred. It is appropriate for this to occur. Senator Brown supported my point: if we do not refer a case as serious as this, what will we ever take seriously? This is a case where we know false documentation was used to justify an attempt to use Senate estimates in a pre-arranged manner to bring down the Prime Minister of the country. If that is not serious, then clearly there will be no role for the Privileges Committee or concerns about a breach of privilege in this parliament ever again. That will be a very high hurdle to get above.

This is a serious matter. It is a matter that ought to be dealt by the Senate Privileges Committee. I indicate that the Labor Party will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment, but I urge all senators to support the motion.