Scott Ryan (President) | Hansard source

I have a statement to make relating to parliamentary privilege. By letter dated 17 September, Senator Patrick has raised a matter of privilege concerning comments of Mr John Setka reported in the media over the past weekend. The allegation is essentially that these comments amount to an attempt to intimidate crossbench senators in respect of their votes on a fair work amendment bill currently before the parliament. Where a matter of privilege is raised, my role is to consider whether a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee should have precedence in debate. In doing so, I am bound to have regard only to the two criteria in privilege resolution 4. The first of these criteria seeks to reserve the Senate's contempt powers for matters involving substantial obstruction to Senate and committee processes or to the performance of senators' duties as senators. Any credible allegation that a person has sought to intimidate a senator to change their vote is a serious one, meeting the first of the criteria I must consider.

The second criterion, regard for the existence of any other remedy, recognises that the Senate is generally reluctant to deal with conduct as a contempt where another, more appropriate avenue for redress is available. It may be that there is an alternative remedy available in respect of the conduct reported as the foundation for these allegations. However, only the Senate can deal with allegations of improper interference with its own proceedings. Accordingly, on the basis of the criteria I am required to consider, I have determined that the matter should have precedence as a matter of privilege. The question of whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation as a possible contempt is a question for the Senate itself. I table the correspondence and call Senator Patrick to give a notice of motion in respect of the matter.