Senate debates
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Matters Raised in the Senate 25 June 2009
12:40 pm
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I will now address matters that were raised in the Senate on the last day of sitting, 25 June 2009.
On 25 June 2009 three questions of order were raised for my consideration.
Just before question time Senator Bob Brown referred to the vote on the motion to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee. Senator Parry took a point of order to the effect that Senator Brown was reflecting on a vote of the Senate.
The prohibition in standing order 193(1) against reflecting on a vote of the Senate is not interpreted as preventing a senator from arguing that a decision of the Senate was wrong or mistaken and should be reconsidered. The word ‘reflect’ in the standing order means reflect within the meaning of the word used elsewhere in that standing order—that is, to use unparliamentary language with reference to a decision of the Senate. Senator Brown’s remarks were therefore not out of order.
During question time a point of order was taken in relation to a phrase used by Senator Fielding in a question he asked. Senator Fielding referred to a person accused of a criminal offence ‘still living freely in Australia, no less than two kilometres away from the family of the boy whom he bashed to death with the government’s full knowledge and consent’. A point of order was taken on the basis that Senator Fielding appeared to be making an accusation that someone was bashed to death with the government’s consent. It is clear to me that Senator Fielding meant to say that the person was still living in Australia with the government’s consent and that there was an unintended ambiguity in the way his question was worded.
After question time Senator Bob Brown referred to a statement by Senator Abetz concerning Senator Abetz’s vote on the matter of the reference to the Privileges Committee. Senator Abetz stated: ‘Given that the motion related to me personally, I thought that I should not be casting a vote and that a pair was appropriate.’ Senator Brown asked me to consider whether pairing was in effect a vote. Pairs are informal arrangements between senators and are not matters of procedure for the chair to comment on, but it is obvious that where a senator is paired the senator’s absence from a vote is cancelled out by the agreed absence of another senator. I should state, however, that there is nothing in the rules of the Senate that prevented Senator Abetz from voting on the motion concerned.
12:44 pm
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding three minutes.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the Senate. A lot has been said and written about my involvement in what has now become known as the OzCar affair. I have already publicly apologised, but I wanted to take this very first opportunity in the Senate to repeat that apology and in addition apologise for any perceived reflection on the Senate. I also want to briefly deal with the three assertions made against me: that I pressured a witness; that I misled a Senate hearing; and that I scripted a witness’s evidence. All three assertions are wrong.
First, as the joint statement I made with the Leader of the Opposition on 4 August makes clear, the witness volunteered his information. When the witness approached us we listened because he was a person with direct knowledge of the matters in question.
The second assertion is that I misled the Senate on 19 June by suggesting that a journalist had told me about the now known to be fake email and its contents. The simple fact is that a journalist did tell me this. He said he had been contacted by the witness, who had shared his information including the contents of the email. The journalist then shared that information with me. As the joint statement made clear, the witness had previously shown me the email. Both statements are true; they are not mutually exclusive. Having received information from two separate sources it is quite appropriate to rely solely or partially on just one of those sources without exposing the other.
The third claim is that I scripted the evidence, coached the witness and somehow interfered with the provision of evidence to the committee. This allegation is also wrong. Again, as spelt out in the joint statement, at no stage did I script the evidence, coach the witness or suggest what his answers might be. I would point out to the Senate that talking to witnesses before they give their evidence is common practice, so is asking questions provided by a third party. Every senator knows this is true. Indeed, ministers know beforehand many of the questions they will be asked in question time. I can even recall being given notice of questions the crossbenchers proposed to ask me. It is how the parliament works.
However, improper influence of a witness is what the standing orders provide against, as they should. There was no improper influence. I repeat: I did not pressure a witness, I did not script a witness’s evidence, nor did I mislead the Senate.
Having said that, Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my apology to the Australian people and to the Prime Minister over this matter and again apologise for any perceived reflection on the Senate. I thank the Senate.
12:47 pm
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
One thing we do need to review is the matter of senators going to committees or, indeed, appearing in here and giving the impression that we do not have foreknowledge from a witness as occurred on the occasion with Mr Grech. I think it would be much healthier for committees to be aware that senators have spoken with such a witness when it is central to an inquiry by a committee. It puts the rest of the committee at a very clear disadvantage if it does not have that information.
While Senator Abetz is quite right to say that there are precedents for this matter, I think we all have to, quite sensibly in a committee system, think about the much better outcome there will be in committees if senators are open about contact with witnesses who are appearing before the Senate committee. It may be worth us considering the Privileges Committee considering that the right thing is for a senator to let the committee know that there has been previous contact. I think that would be a sensible outcome from this affair and that we do not leave it lie.
The second matter is about your ruling on the vote, Mr President. Clearly it does mean, and common sense dictates, that a pairing is, in effect, a vote. The question on 25 June was that Senator Abetz said that he had not cast a vote when, in fact, by being paired he did cast a vote, and that vote meant the difference between the matter in which he was centrally involved being referred to the Privileges Committee or not. The passage of events means the matter will be seen by the Privileges Committee and I do not wish to take it further. However, I think it is important that we all understand that when we are paired we are effectively casting a vote and our vote is being used.
12:50 pm
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I would like to acknowledge the apology given by Senator Abetz and I will, obviously, take an interest as to whether the same thing occurs in the House of Representatives with Mr Turnbull. I just want to make the point that I do not think this is the time to debate the notice of motion given by both Senator Fielding and me which goes to this question of the activities of the committee on that occasion. Obviously if there is a reference to the Privileges Committee that will give them a chance to test the claims made by Senator Abetz and the defence he has offered today and whether or not there was any misleading or contempt.
On the question of Senator Brown’s comments—and I expressed this view at the time probably in a disorderly fashion because I do not think I spoke on the HansardI did make it clear in the Senate that the decision to grant a pair to Senator Abetz was one that the Labor Party took. We recognised his absence from the vote and paired him, and as far as I am concerned there is therefore no issue and the ruling is a correct one.
12:51 pm
Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement of three minutes.
Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I take matters of privilege extremely seriously, and before the chamber tomorrow will be two incidents that I have referred through. One is on the OzCar inquiry and the other is on the Conroy laptop inquiry. Both these incidents have been in the public realm and do, I think, undermine the integrity of the Senate in the public’s mind, and both these issues need to be referred through to the Privileges Committee.
I think that for one side of politics to support only half of the recommendation would be wrong and would be seen to be playing politics. I think that both instances, the OzCar affair and the Conroy laptop affair, should be put through to the Privileges Committee. I will be interested to know tomorrow exactly what the outcome will be, but both those instances are worthy of going through the Senate Privileges Committee, because they go to the matter of integrity in the Senate.