Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

The question before us today asks us to abandon an important democratic principle in order to take action against someone whose behaviour we all find reprehensible. John Setka's behaviour has been disgraceful. Anyone who has followed his case in the media knows that he has been accused of acting in a misogynistic manner towards women and, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions, he's been dismissive of the harm that his behaviour has caused. As recently as last week, he was caught on tape speaking dismissively about conduct that any decent person knows is completely unacceptable. He's not taking the issues confronting him seriously and he clearly does not get it.

But the referral today is not about those matters. It's not about whether John Setka is a good person or a bad person. It's not about whether or not you think he's a good representative for the union movement. The only question before us today is whether John Setka interfered with the operations of the Senate or exerted improper influence on senators and whether doing so meets the test for a referral to privileges. That's the only question we have to decide today and, on the basis of the information before the Senate, he clearly does not.

We accept that Senators Patrick and Lambie are aggrieved by his comments, and we're not saying that they're wrong for feeling the way that they do. What we're saying is that those comments do not meet the test outlined in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The statements made by Mr Setka with regard to Senators Patrick and Lambie, when stripped of their profanity, amounted to nothing more than an organisation stating it would run a campaign against a publicly contested policy position.

A union has the right to run a campaign to protect the rights of Australian workers and the members it represents. Indeed, any organisation or citizen has the right to campaign; it is not a threat to engage in a democratic process. Part (b) of this referral refers to two other CFMEU members, at a time when former senator Nick Xenophon was in parliament, accused of accosting the senator with their views on legislation before the parliament. While these allegations may be legitimate, the Committee of Privileges should not be used to pursue one individual for the behaviour of others. We note that this matter has already been referred to the Federal Police for criminal investigation and we await the result of any subsequent investigation.

However, to support this referral today would send us down a very slippery slope, a slope of politicians abusing an important parliamentary committee to punish their political competitors. We have seen the referrals process abused in the past and we must ensure that it does not happen now. This sets a very dangerous precedent that could be used in future to pursue the leader of any organisation or indeed any citizen seeking to mount a political campaign against something they oppose. If any other evidence should emerge, we will reconsider our position. And, if the Senate does choose to refer this matter to the privileges committee, then we will of course respect that decision.