George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges, I present the 142nd report of the committee entitled Matters arising from the Economics Legislation Committee Hearing on 19 June 2009 (referred 24 June and 12 August 2009), together with submissions and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That:

(a)

in respect of the matters referred on 24 June 2009:

(i)

the Senate endorse the committee’s findings in paragraph 6.5 and the conclusion in paragraph 6.6 of the report;

(ii)

the President of the Senate resume consideration of an appropriate response to flagrant breaches of the Presiding Officers’ guidelines on filming and photography in Parliament House by members of the media on 19 June 2009, noting the committee’s suggestion in paragraph 3.23 of the report; and

(iii)

the Chairs’ Committee established under standing order 25(10) consider model practices for handling the media at committee hearings, and the inclusion of additional information about witnesses’ rights under the broadcasting resolutions in the standard information provided to all witnesses, as discussed in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15 of the report; and

(b)

in respect of the matters referred on 12 August 2009, the Senate endorse the committee’s findings in paragraph 6.8 and the conclusion in paragraph 6.9 of the report.

This is a unanimous report and I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues, both government and opposition, for the considerable efforts they have made to ensure the result. It has been a very difficult inquiry involving matters of great public notoriety and sensitivity and concerning allegations against a senior member of the Senate, Senator Abetz, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, among other things. The politically controversial nature of the matters, the subject of the report, is of course notorious. Nevertheless, the fact that the committee has been able to reach a unanimous report in relation to the matter I think, if I may say so, reflects well on the way in which each member of the committee approached the task at hand.

To summarise some of the key findings of the report: in relation to whether any adverse action was taken against Mr Godwin Grech in respect of his evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the committee has concluded:

• the conduct of the media at and after the hearing was excessive, inappropriate and in contravention of the rules but that there is no evidence that, in their zealousness, camera operators and photographers intended any harm to Mr Grech or to the operations of the committee and, therefore, that no contempt was committed;
• the initiation of an Australian Federal Police inquiry into Mr Grech was not primarily motivated by Mr Grech’s evidence to the committee and, therefore, that no contempt of the Senate was committed by the AFP;
• the initiation of disciplinary action by the Department of the Treasury was not a direct consequence of Mr Grech’s evidence to the committee and that, therefore, no contempt of the committee was committed by any official of Treasury;
• it was unable to discover any evidence of ‘backgrounding’ of the media.

In relation to whether any false or misleading evidence was given to the Economics Legislation Committee or whether there was any improper interference with the committee hearing, the committee has made the following findings, among others:

• There is evidence that the Economics Legislation Committee was misled by references to a document—a faked email—later admitted to be false.
• In relation to allegations made concerning Senator Abetz, Senator Abetz did not make false or misleading statements to or, by any conduct of his, cause any improper interference with the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• There was no improper conduct by a Treasury officer, Mr Martine, at the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• Mr Godwin Grech gave evidence to the committee about his dealings with a journalist, Mr Steve Lewis, that was untrue.
• Mr Godwin Grech did not disclose to the committee that he had created a record of the email that he asserts he believed existed.
• Mr Godwin Grech suggested to the opposition that the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009 should be referred to a Senate committee for the purposes of having his ‘evidence’ about alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister placed in the public arena.
• There was no inappropriateness about any discussions involving Mr Grech, Senator Abetz and Mr Turnbull concerning questions and answers that might be put to or responded to by Mr Grech at the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee.
• There was no improper interference with Mr Grech in respect of his evidence and no improper pressure placed upon him by any person.

Although evidence was given to the Economics Legislation Committee by Mr Grech that was objectively false and misleading, and although the committee was also misled by references to an email later revealed to have been fabricated by Mr Grech, the committee has not been able to make any findings about Mr Grech’s state of mind at the time he took those actions because of the state of Mr Grech’s physical and mental health at relevant times. A finding of contempt constituted by misleading a Senate committee depends upon the existence at the relevant time of a subjective intention to do so. The fact that the statements were objectively false is not sufficient. The committee has not been able to conclude that Mr Grech knowingly and deliberately gave false or misleading evidence or that he knowingly and deliberately misled the Economics Legislation Committee about the basis of his inquiry.

The committee has been frustrated by its inability to arrive at a conclusion about Mr Grech’s culpability, both because of the state of his health and because of the practical difficulty of testing the claim of medical incapacity advanced by his treating doctor. Nevertheless, the committee has not found itself in a position to dispute the medical evidence of Mr Grech’s incapacity to participate in its proceedings. In these circumstances, the committee is unable to arrive at, and therefore has not arrived at, a conclusion that a contempt was committed by Mr Grech.

Might I make three observations in relation to the report. First of all, the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee at which these events took place was a hearing at which a potentially very grave scandal—a scandal potentially involving the Prime Minister of Australia and the Treasurer of Australia—had been raised. It ultimately transpired, as we know, that the allegations against certain individuals including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were based on a faked email. Nevertheless, at the time the reference to the Economics Legislation Committee was made, that fact was unknown to those responsible for the reference and could not reasonably have been known to them. It is absolutely the work of the parliament, including through its committees, including through Senate committees, to expose misconduct and corruption. The reference to the committee of these matters, on the basis of the knowledge of the individuals responsible for the reference at the time the reference was made, was an example of the parliament discharging its highest function. Not only was there nothing inappropriate about it; it was the very course of action that ought appropriately to have been pursued by Senator Abetz.

The second observation I want to make is in relation to natural justice. As honourable senators who read the report will see, the committee has bent over backwards to afford Mr Grech natural justice. We have, in the end, not found a contempt because we have been unable to test his state of mind by examination of him or by an exchange of questions and answers with him. Late in the day—in fact on Tuesday—the committee received from Mr Grech’s solicitors some detailed responses, which we have included as an appendix to the report of the committee. Nevertheless, I am at pains to stress—and both government and opposition senators who sat on the committee have been at pains to ensure—that natural justice has been fully afforded to Mr Grech in this process.

Finally, I want to pay a particular tribute of regard to the staff who served the committee through this very difficult inquiry involving many meetings, taking dozens of hours, particularly meetings in the last few days which, for other unrelated reasons, have become quite difficult. Dr Rosemary Laing, the Secretary of the Privileges Committee, has served the Senate in her work on this particular report magnificently. This is the last of many, many Privileges Committee reports for which Dr Laing will be responsible in view of her promotion, news of which was gladly received by the committee during the course of its meetings on this reference, to the post of Clerk of the Senate. On behalf of the committee, I congratulate Dr Laing on that promotion and thank her most sincerely for her superb professionalism.