John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can seek leave for one minute. If I am unable to have leave of the Senate I will seek leave to incorporate my remarks into Hansard. Of course I have not had an opportunity to show those remarks to senators in the chamber. Senators would be aware that this issue related directly to me, and I at a minimum would seek the leave of the Senate to incorporate remarks into the Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I thank the Privileges Committee for its exhaustive inquiry and unanimous report on this matter.

I note the committee's strong recommendations and look forward to their early implementation.

Of course I would not expect the Privileges Committee to recommend a finding of contempt on this matter.

In fact, I appreciate that the Privileges Committee has always had a focus on taking corrective action, and this Report is very consistent with that longstanding tradition.

Mr President, in February 2014, CCTV images of a DPS employee placing an envelope under the door of my parliamentary office were used by DPS officials in an investigation of a staff management issue.

My own involvement in this matter began at the Budget Estimates hearing into DPS on the 26 May 2014.

It only became clear to me then that DPS officials had used the CCTV system in contravention of its Code of Practice.

The only purposes for the use of such cameras and the images they capture are outlined in the Code. These purposes do not include tracking or monitoring the movements of DPS staff members, or other citizens, properly and lawfully engaging with Senators.

And in my view, the use of CCTV footage and images as outlined in this Report — for purposes outside the Code of Practice — does represent an egregious improper interference with the free performance of my duties as a senator.

The Privileges Committee's findings in this Report of the Department of Parliamentary Services performance, and in particular the performance of its Secretary, is devastating.

In fact, the Committee finds that the DPS Secretary has given clearly contradictory evidence and has misled the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.

Let me quote from Chapter 2 of the Report

Under the heading "Contradictory evidence" on page 9 this Report states:

2.2 It is necessary first, however, to deal with contradictions between the evidence the department provided at the May estimates hearing, its submission and additional documents provided on 11 November 2014.

2.3 The DPS Secretary told the estimates hearing in May 2014 that the matter now referred to the Privileges Committee had only come to her attention on the day of that hearing, on the basis of inquiries she made after questions were asked of the Senate department.

So, Mr President, let's be very clear about this, the Secretary of DPS gave evidence in Senate Estimates that she had only just become aware of the issue that same day. "That is what I am looking into. That is the issue that was brought to my attention today..."

But documents provided to the Privileges Committee told a different story.

The Privileges Committee Report notes:

2.6 The DPS submission contradicted the Secretary's evidence at estimates. It stated that the discovery of footage showing the employee placing an envelope under a senator's office door was communicated to the Secretary on 27 February, three months prior to the hearing.

The Privileges Committee Report goes on to state:

2.9 Despite her evidence to the estimates hearing that the matters now referred to the Privileges Committee first came to her attention during those hearings, these documents demonstrate that the Secretary was made aware of all aspects of the incident as it transpired. In particular, the documents show:

•   that when Ms Mills approved a preliminary code of conduct investigation on 25 February she also approved the release of still photographs from security cameras

•   that the request which Ms Mills approved on 25 February informed her that the CCTV system had already been used to gather information on the matter

•   that the discovery of footage showing the employee placing an envelope under Senator Faulkner's office door was communicated to Ms Mills on 27 February.

The Report goes on. I quote the next paragraph:

2.10 The Secretary's response is contained in an email to one of her staff.•

You may be aware that contact by individuals with parliamentarians is not something that we monitor in order to provide privacy to them in the conduct of their business. Happy to discuss.

And then more:

2.11 The submission and additional documents cast considerable doubt upon the evidence given by the Secretary. The committee has not been able to reconcile the evidence given at the estimates hearing with the submission and documents which DPS has subsequently provided, and considers that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee was misled about the Secretary's knowledge of the events that led to this inquiry.

I am pleased the Privileges Committee has chosen to publish the relevant documents so that they are now available to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee to consider.

But it doesn't end there.

Paragraph 2.13 of the Privileges Committee report highlights just how serious the problems are:

2.13 There should be no doubt, however, that the committee considers the misleading of the legislation committee in these circumstances to be a serious breach of accountability and probity.

I repeat that — "a serious breach of accountability and probity"

Paragraph 2.52 of the Report notes the Committee's concern about the DPS's attitude to using Parliament House's CCTV system, and states:

The fact that DPS seems to consider that there might be circumstances in which the unauthorised surveillance of a parliamentarians' office might not be contrary to privilege is of concern to the committee.

And in relation to whether the use of CCTV footage of a staff member leaving an envelope under my door in Parliament House was according to the rules — an issue I have raised in a very forthright way in Estimates — the committee concludes in Chapter 3, at paragraph 3.44 of its Report:

...that the use of the CCTV system was not properly authorised under the Code of Practice.

The Report from the Privileges Committee identifies misleading and contradictory evidence provided by the Secretary of DPS to a Senate Committee.

It also shines a light on the flagrant misuse of CCTV cameras in Parliament House.

Let me reinforce my longstanding view that we should accept nothing other than the highest of standards of public administration from any Parliamentary Department.

A parliamentary department should be an exemplar. But DPS is not.

The findings of this damning report, that the Secretary:

•   has misled Senate Committees, and

•   has given contradictory evidence, and

•   has overseen the unauthorised use of CCTV,

reinforces my view — publicly stated — that DPS is the worst run government department in the Commonwealth of Australia.

I commend this report.

I sincerely hope it is read and acted upon.