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

I present the 129th report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Dr Clive Hamilton.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the report be adopted.

This report is the 49th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate.

On 25 October 2006, the President received a submission from Dr Clive Hamilton relating to comments made by Senator Eric Abetz in the Senate on 18 October 2006 during question time. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution 5. The committee considered the submission on 7 November 2006 and recommends that Dr Hamilton’s proposed response, as agreed by the committee and Dr Hamilton, be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons’ submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution 5.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again the Senate has accorded an Australian citizen a right of reply under section 5. As I have said previously, I think it is very commendable that the Senate allows this provision to be exercised. I have often drawn the odious comparison with the other place, the House of Representatives, which to my knowledge, although I have not updated it of late, has only ever allowed one reply. They have very similar provisions to ours. Mr Acting Deputy President, I could not tell you how many replies we have allowed but I think there would have been at least 50 over the last decade or more. The House of Representatives, in the early stages, took the attitude that generally they would not allow any replies. The reason for that is that at least one or two precious individuals, including a grub I know very well, always took the attitude you should never give anyone the chance to criticise politicians. That was the reason that even the government members on the House of Representatives Privileges Committee always felt stymied. Now that person has gone from the place, I would expect them to lift their performance in this particular way.

The Senate Standing Committee of Privileges has the onerous duty of not merely ticking a reply but making sure that it is in conformity with the provisions of privileges resolutions and also our past practice. In other words, this is not just an open go. If the person responding starts to open up a new front or is abusive or overly critical in their response, we have to suggest that it be modified. This was the case in this particular response, and it is often the case, because we do not want to start tit-for-tat warfare in this chamber. In general, these amendments are negotiated, usually by the secretary of the committee with the concurrence of the chair and deputy chair of the committee, and eventually we see the reply in the form that it has arrived in today.

The committee does not distinguish bet-ween the natures of misrepresentation, defamation et cetera—but I do. I think there are different forms. I think things said about colleagues in this place can always be responded to but an attack on the character of a third party, if it is a preplanned attack like an arranged question and a detailed answer read out, goes beyond the pale on occasions and is far more serious than the offhand and hot-headed remarks that senators often make and later regret. I also think we should think seriously if it is an attack based on someone’s philosophical or religious beliefs, and I find it hard to distinguish in this case whether that was the case. If you attack someone’s spiritualism in this place, I do not think that actually enhances the role and reputation of the Senate. I would also say about this particular case that what really bemused me was not the attack against Dr Hamilton but the allegation that the Australia Institute is some sort of front organisation for the Labor Party and the Greens. I have never heard of it and I have never heard of Dr Hamilton, so if he is a stooge of ours he will come as a surprise to me and, I think, many other senators. We have seen him in the public domain before expressing views, but he certainly does not speak on behalf of the Labor Party or at our behest.

Question agreed to.

The response read as follows—

Appendix One

Response by Dr Clive Hamilton

Pursuant to Resolution 5(7)(b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988

On 18 ^th October 2006, in reply to a question from Senator Heffernan, Senator Abetz launched a personal attack on me ostensibly in response to my comments on drought relief to Australian farmers. By taking some words of mine wholly out of context, he attempted to defame me by ridiculing my religious experiences.

The same words used by Senator Abetz were used by Senator Parer to attack me on 25 ^th September 1997, in reply to a question from Senator Abetz ostensibly about my views on greenhouse policy. The Privileges Committee recommended that my response to Senator Parer be incorporated in Hansard, which was duly done on 21 October 1997.

In 1994 I was invited by Caroline Jones to be a guest on her ABC Radio program The Search for Meaning. The Search for Meaning was a long-running program that provided an opportunity for well-known people to discuss their personal spiritual and religious journeys. It was difficult for me to decide whether to accept the invitation to appear because it would require some intimate revelations about my own spiritual journey. I feared that I may be misunderstood and, possibly, ridiculed by people who have little understanding of the subject. After the program, I had many letters and telephone calls from people around Australia thanking me for my candour and willingness to speak of these issues.

Senator Abetz has selected from the one-hour interview my description of the stage of the spiritual journey known as the ‘confrontation with the shadow’, a well-known aspect of the process of ‘individuation’, that is, the process of achieving psychological wholeness. There is an extensive psychological literature on this process.

Many eminent Australians—including authors, scientists, poets, academics and religious leaders—have spoken or written of similar experiences, as any regular listener of Caroline Jones’ program would know. The experience of confronting the shadow is a persistent theme of the world’s literature. Some celebrated examples include Goethe’s Faust and Dante’s Inferno . I could name dozens more which deal with it explicitly. The theme also figures prominently in Australian literature including the work of A.D. Hope and Patrick White, the latter in his seminal work Voss , to name but two.

This literature in turn reflects the graphic treatment of these experiences in the great religious writings of the world. They feature prominently, for example, in both the old and new testaments of the Bible and in the Bhagavad-Gita. Several of the best-known Christian theologians, including St John of the Cross, Master Eckhart and Hildegard of Bingen, provide detailed accounts of their experiences which closely resemble mine in form, content and resolution.

I was dismayed to hear Senator Abetz use intimate revelations about my spiritual journey in an attempt to smear me as an individual and undermine my credibility as a commentator on drought relief. The very same views on drought relief have been expressed recently by a wide range of experts and commentators including Professor Peter Cullen, Professor Mike Young, Mr Ross Gittins, the Productivity Commission and the Government-endorsed Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group.

My credentials as a commentator have not been questioned by anyone, but in case any observer should have doubts after Senator Abetz’s attack I would like to record the following. I hold a degree in Pure Mathematics from the Australian National University, a First Class Honours degree in Economics from the University of Sydney and a DPhil from the University of Sussex. I have held permanent or visiting positions at the Australian National University, the University of Sydney, the University of Technology, Sydney and the University of Cambridge.

I have published widely, including seven books and many articles in Australian and international refereed academic journals. I have been employed to carry out research by many government, business and community organisations including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, the Department of Environment Sport and Territories, the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and the Sustainable Energy Development Authority.

Clive Hamilton

19 October 2006